Prop Firm Compare Launches Futures Market Index and Report as Search Demand Rises 108%

US search demand for futures prop trading has more than doubled since 2024.

What the company is saying

Prop Firm Compare is positioning its State of Futures Prop Trading 2026 report as the first comprehensive analysis of US futures prop firm search demand, pricing, and trading rules. The company highlights a 108% increase in US search demand for futures prop firms compared to 2024, now averaging 11,282 monthly searches versus 5,420 previously. It emphasizes that futures prop firms attract 2.1 times the US search demand of forex prop firms, with searches for forex prop firms declining by 10% over the same period. The report draws attention to the entry of established forex brands into the futures market and the relative youth of the sector, noting that 24% of firms originated in forex or CFD trading and 11 out of 29 firms launched in 2023 or later. Kane Simons, Founder of Prop Firm Compare, is quoted to reinforce the narrative of a sector in rapid transition and growing complexity, urging traders to compare firm-specific rules and costs. The announcement also calls for greater transparency on trader outcomes, referencing limited public data on pass rates and payouts.

What the data suggests

The data shows a sharp 108% year-on-year increase in US search demand for futures prop firms, with average monthly searches rising from 5,420 in 2024 to 11,282 between October 2025 and September 2026. In contrast, forex prop firm searches dropped by 10%, from 6,125 to 5,490 per month. The gap is even wider for 'best futures prop firms' searches, which averaged 1,800 per month versus 400 for 'best forex prop firms.' The sector is expanding, with 29 active firms analyzed and 11 launching in 2023 or later. Pricing for a $50,000 evaluation averages $135 at list, dropping to $95 after discounts, with extremes ranging from $49 to $245. The cheapest route to a funded $50,000 account averages $201 including activation fees, which are present at 59% of firms. Consistency rules are nearly universal (93%), end-of-day drawdown is offered by 90% of firms, and 28% offer intraday trailing drawdown. Instant-funded accounts are available at 52% of firms, and the minimum trading days before payout eligibility averages 3.7 days. The only firm disclosing pass rates, Earn2Trade, reported an 8.9% evaluation pass rate and 18% of funded accounts making at least one withdrawal in 2025. The report itself notes a lack of industry-wide transparency on trader outcomes.

Analysis

The announcement is a factual release of a sectoral research report, presenting realised data on US search demand, pricing, and trading conditions across 29 futures prop firms. Nearly all claims are supported by specific numerical evidence, such as the 108% increase in search demand and detailed pricing breakdowns. The only forward-looking statement is the intention to update the report quarterly, which is procedural rather than promotional. There are no exaggerated claims about future growth, profitability, or market dominance, and no capital outlay or investment projections are discussed. The tone is analytical and descriptive, with no language inflating the significance of the findings. The data supports the narrative fully, and there is no gap between the company's statements and the evidence provided.

Risk flags

• ●The lack of industry-wide transparency on evaluation pass rates and payout outcomes creates a significant information gap for traders and investors, as only Earn2Trade discloses such data. This limits the ability to assess the true success rates and profitability of funded trading accounts across the sector.
• ●Activation fees and recurring charges, present at 59% of firms, can materially increase the total cost for traders beyond headline evaluation prices. This complexity in fee structures may obscure the real economic burden for participants and complicate direct firm-to-firm comparisons.
• ●The rapid influx of new entrants—11 of 29 firms launched in 2023 or later—raises questions about the maturity and long-term stability of many providers. The relative youth of the sector increases the risk of business model changes, firm exits, or evolving trading conditions.

Bottom line

Interest in US futures prop trading has surged, with search demand more than doubling since 2024 and now far outpacing forex prop firms. The sector is expanding rapidly, with a notable influx of new firms and established forex brands entering the space. Evaluation costs are competitive, but the prevalence of activation fees and complex rules means traders face a wide range of actual costs and conditions. Transparency on trader outcomes remains limited, with only one firm disclosing pass and payout rates, making it difficult to gauge the true likelihood of success for participants. For investors, the most important takeaway is the sector’s rapid growth and evolving landscape, but the lack of comprehensive outcome data and the youth of many firms mean operational and disclosure risks remain high. Future report updates may provide more clarity, but for now, actionable investment decisions require caution and further data.

Announcement summary

(LSE:FNEWS) Prop Firm Compare has released the first edition of The State of Futures Prop Trading 2026 report, analyzing search demand, evaluation pricing, and trading conditions across 29 active futures prop firms in the USA. US search demand for futures prop firms increased by 108% compared with 2024, with monthly US searches for 20 futures prop firm keywords averaging 11,282 between October 2025 and September 2026, up from 5,420 in 2024. In contrast, searches for the equivalent forex keyword basket fell by 10%, from 6,125 to 5,490 per month. The report found that futures prop firms now attract approximately 2.1 times the US search demand of forex prop firms. Searches containing “best” showed 1,800 monthly US searches for “best futures prop firms” versus 400 for “best forex prop firms”. Of the 29 active firms analyzed, 24% originated in forex or CFD prop trading, including FTMO, FundedNext, E8 Markets, and Goat Funded Futures. 11 of the 29 firms launched in 2023 or later, highlighting the market's relative youth. Across 27 firms offering a $50,000 evaluation, the cheapest available evaluation at each firm cost an average of $135 at list price, reduced to $95 after discounts. List prices ranged from $49 for Topstep’s monthly evaluation to $245 at IQ Capital. The average cheapest single-attempt route to a funded $50,000 account, including evaluation and activation fees, cost $201, excluding resets and monthly renewals. Activation fees were present on at least one account at 59% of firms. Consistency rules were found at 27 of 29 firms (93%), typically limiting how much profit can come from a single trading day. End-of-day drawdown was offered by 90% of firms, and 28% offered intraday trailing drawdown on at least one account. 52% of firms offered an instant-funded account bypassing the traditional evaluation process. The minimum number of trading days before first payout eligibility on the fastest account at each firm averaged 3.7 days. Earn2Trade’s published 2025 figures showed an evaluation pass rate of approximately 8.9%, and 18% of funded accounts made at least one withdrawal. The report calls for greater transparency on trader outcomes and will be updated quarterly.

Disagree with this article?