The prop industry's least favourite number has moved from trade press into a securities filing. On September 15, 2026, Nasdaq-listed Perpetuals.com Ltd (ticker PDC) filed its annual report on Form 20-F with the SEC. In a section describing the market it competes in, the company cited industry data showing that only a small share of prop firm customers ever get paid.
What the filing says
The 20-F states that retail prop firms "commonly generate revenue by charging prospective traders fees to participate in trading evaluations or 'challenges,'" and that "the trader generally pays the fee regardless of whether the trader successfully completes the evaluation." It then cites:
- Data published by Finance Magnates and based on FPFX Tech, covering more than 300,000 accounts and about 100,000 traders across ten prop firms
- About 14% of traders passed the evaluation and got a funded account
- About 7% ultimately received a payout
- Traders spent about $800 on challenges over their time with a firm, typically across about three attempts
The filing also names FTMO as an example of a firm describing an evaluation process where users "may become eligible for rewards based on profits generated in a simulated trading account."
Where the 7% comes from
The figures trace back to FPFX Tech, a prop firm technology provider, and were reported by Finance Magnates in 2024. Finance Magnates has continued to cite them in 2026. In an April 2026 report it described the average earnings as "just 4% of allocated capital." In a June 2026 analysis it argued that many firms "rely heavily on a steady stream of evaluation fees from the 93% who fail" to cover costs and pay winners.
Some firm-level disclosures are in a similar range for the pass stage. Hola Prime told Finance Magnates its evaluation-to-funded pass rate is about 15%, with traders averaging 3.5 attempts before passing. The same report cites a Swiset study of nearly 10,000 prop traders that put the global failure rate at around 80%.
Why it matters
For a futures or forex trader deciding whether to buy a challenge, the key figure is the payout rate. The advertised account size and the pass rate matter less. If the industry-wide figure is near 7%, the typical buyer should expect to spend fees and never get paid. That doesn't mean you can't be in the 7%. It does mean the business model works even if you aren't.
The pushback
There are fair reasons to be careful with the number:
- It's old. The FPFX dataset was reported in 2024 and covers ten firms on one tech provider. It is not the whole industry, and FinanceFeeds notes these are "company or industry data rather than audited market standards."
- Not every failed trader was trying seriously. Some buyers are casual or experimental. The stat can't tell skill from effort.
- Firms differ. Pass and payout rates vary with rules, pricing and customer mix. A firm-specific rate would tell a trader more.
- Source bias. A competitor citing the stat in its own filing is using it to sell a rival product.
Our take
Our take: The fact that a two-year-old dataset from one tech vendor is still the go-to source, now cited in an SEC filing, says a lot about the industry. If the real number were much better, firms would have strong commercial reasons to publish their own audited pass and payout rates. Almost none do. The uncomfortable question: when a Nasdaq company can pitch against prop firms using the industry's own numbers, why haven't prop firms published better ones?
What traders can do
- Ask any firm for its payout rate per challenge buyer, not just pass rates or total dollars paid.
- Set a fixed challenge budget in advance, and treat the ~$800 / ~3 attempts figure as a warning, not a target.
- Track your own numbers: fees spent vs. payouts received, per firm.
Key takeaways
- Perpetuals.com's 20-F, filed September 15, 2026, cites FPFX Tech data: ~14% funded, ~7% paid, ~$800 spent across ~3 attempts.
- The data covers 300,000+ accounts at ten firms and was first reported by Finance Magnates in 2024.
- Perpetuals cites it to contrast its own competing product, so it has a commercial motive.
- Hola Prime reports a ~15% pass rate with ~3.5 attempts on average, in the same range as the FPFX data.
- Few firms publish audited payout rates per buyer.
Put the research to work on your Desk
Explore the tools behind the research, compare the available access, or open your Desk if you already have an account.
FAQ
What percentage of prop traders get paid?
FPFX Tech data covering 300,000+ accounts at ten firms, reported by Finance Magnates, found about 7% of traders received a payout and about 14% passed an evaluation. It is not an audited industry-wide figure.
Why is a prop stat in an SEC filing?
Perpetuals.com Ltd, a Nasdaq-listed company, cited it in its Form 20-F filed September 15, 2026 to describe the market and contrast prop firms with its own simulated trading product.
How much do traders spend on prop challenges?
The FPFX-based data cited in the filing says about $800 on average, typically across about three challenge attempts.
Loomi.Ai provides educational market research, not financial advice. Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss, and backtested results are historical and do not guarantee future returns.
Sources
- Perpetuals.com Ltd Form 20-F (FY2026), filed Sep 15, 2026 — SEC EDGAR filing search, SEC EDGAR / Perpetuals.com Ltd
- Hola Prime Brings In Deloitte to Audit Payouts as Trust Gap Widens Across Prop Firms, Finance Magnates
- Prop Trading Slips Down Paris' Agenda as the US Steps Up, Finance Magnates