Loading
Whether a pay-after-you-pass evaluation is good value depends less on its price than on one number most traders never write down: their own chance of passing a single attempt. This article builds a simple, illustrative cost model around that number and shows where the deferred route stops being the cheaper one. The two models, in […]
Hooman Abbasi
· 6 min read
Whether a pay-after-you-pass evaluation is good value depends less on its price than on one number most traders never write down: their own chance of passing a single attempt. This article builds a simple, illustrative cost model around that number and shows where the deferred route stops being the cheaper one.
The figures below are hypothetical round numbers chosen to make the arithmetic visible. They are not any firm’s prices, including ours.
Let p be your probability of passing any single attempt. If you keep trying until you pass, and each attempt is treated as independent, the expected number of attempts is 1/p. A trader with a 20% chance per attempt should expect five attempts on average; one with an 80% chance, one and a quarter.
The expected costs follow directly:
The structural difference is that the standard fee scales with every failure, while most of the deferred cost is paid exactly once.
Illustrative expected cost to reach one pass, using F = $300, e = $10 and P = $400:
| Pass probability per attempt (p) | Expected attempts (1/p) | Expected standard cost | Expected deferred cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | 10 | $3,000 | $500 |
| 20% | 5 | $1,500 | $450 |
| 40% | 2.5 | $750 | $425 |
| 60% | 1.67 | $500 | $416.67 (about $417) |
| 80% | 1.25 | $375 | $412.50 (about $413) |
Set the two expected costs equal and solve for p:
F / p = e / p + P, so (F − e) / p = P, so p = (F − e) / P.
With the illustrative numbers, p = (300 − 10) / 400 = 290 / 400 = 72.5%. Below that per-attempt pass probability, the deferred model is expected to cost less. Above it, the standard model is expected to cost less. At exactly 72.5%, both come to roughly $414.
The formula is more useful than the specific answer. Substitute the real prices of any two routes you are comparing, taken from each provider’s own published terms, and the same line of algebra gives your own break-even.
A deferred model is, in effect, a way of not paying full price for failed attempts. The fewer passes you expect per attempt, the more failed attempts you expect to fund, and the more that saving is worth. That is why the deferred column barely moves while the standard column falls steeply.
The flip side is that a confident, consistent trader gets little from that protection. If you usually pass at the first or second attempt, there are few failures to subsidise, and the larger one-off post-pass fee can make the deferred route the more expensive one. Put plainly: deferred pricing tends to favour traders who are unsure of passing, and tends to cost more for those who reliably do.
Nobody is handed their pass probability. Most traders estimate it from memory, and memory is generous to good runs. If your true p is lower than you think, the standard model’s expected cost rises much faster than you planned for.
The 1/p result assumes each attempt is a fresh, identical draw. In practice a failure can lead to rushed re-entries and larger sizing, which lowers p on the next attempt. Equally, a trader who learns from a failure may raise it. Either way, the clean average becomes a rough guide.
Two routes at different prices are not always the same product. Targets, loss limits, time conditions and activated-account terms can differ, and a different rule set means a different p. Our comparison of one-step and two-step evaluations shows how structure alone changes what passing requires.
The model assumes you continue until you pass. If you stop after a few attempts, you never pay the deferred post-pass fee, and your total outlay is simply the entries you paid. That is another quiet point in the deferred route’s favour for uncertain traders.
For what happens at the moment of passing, including payment windows and refunds, see our guide to what you owe when you pass a pay-after-you-pass evaluation. For a different way of spreading cost, see how pay-as-you-go models compare.
A usable estimate comes from evidence, not confidence:
If that process gives a figure well below your break-even, the deferred route is likely the cheaper path to a pass. If it gives a figure comfortably above, the standard route may be. Our article on why traders fail prop firm challenges is a useful check on assumptions.
We offer both kinds of route. Standard 1-Step evaluations range from $39 for $5K to $599 for $200K, and 2-Step from $29 for $5K to $549 for $200K. Access has a lower upfront entry of $10 on the 1-Step structure and $5 on the 2-Step structure, with the rest settled after you pass, per the Access terms. To compare them properly, take the full figures from the checkout and the Access terms and run them through the formula above. The rules and payout terms published with each plan are authoritative.
No. In the illustrative model it is expected to be cheaper only when your per-attempt pass probability is below the break-even, which there is 72.5%.
You pay only the small entry for each failed attempt. The post-pass fee falls due only if and when you pass, under the relevant terms.
Yes. Replace F, e and P with the published prices of the routes you are comparing and recalculate p = (F − e) / P.
Trading involves risk. Evaluations are conducted on simulated accounts, and most traders do not pass. Nothing in this article is investment advice, and the figures above are illustrative only; no outcome, funding or payout is implied or guaranteed.
Compare every model and stage, see exactly what you pay and when, and start the challenge that suits how you trade.
FOREXIVE provides demo accounts with fictitious funds for simulated trading only. Rewards depend on performance and the rules of the applicable programme.
