Elite Trader Funding has built something genuinely different in the futures prop space: five evaluation types, up to 20 accounts under one login, a profit split that starts at 100%, and a platform lineup that doesn’t force you into a single tool. But there’s a catch buried in the structure that a lot of traders miss until they’re already frustrated, and it’s worth understanding upfront before you hand over your money.
ETF launched in February 2022, founded by Clint Chaney, Kanwal Singh, and Eric Ho, traders with banking and tech backgrounds who clearly put thought into product design. The evaluation variety alone shows that. They’re not offering one cookie-cutter challenge and telling everyone to adapt. They built distinct paths for scalpers, swing traders, position traders, and everyone in between.
So why does ETF have traders who love it and traders who feel burned? The short answer: the sim-funded structure. And that’s the conversation we need to have.
Quick Specs
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Founded | February 2022 |
| Account Sizes | $10K to $300K |
| Profit Split | 100% on first $12,500, then 90% |
| Evaluation Types | 1-Step, EOD, Fast Track, Static, Diamond Hands |
| Monthly Fee (Sim-Funded) | $87/mo (or one-time $150–$300) |
| Platforms | NinjaTrader, Tradovate, TradingView, Rithmic + 12 others |
| Instruments | 76 futures contracts (CME, CBOT, COMEX, NYMEX) |
| Trustpilot | ~3.8 (1,000+ reviews) |
| Payouts via | Rise (KYC required) |
The Three-Tier Structure You Have to Understand
Here’s the thing most reviews gloss over. When traders pass an ETF evaluation, they don’t automatically move to a funded account with real capital. Instead, they land in a “Sim-Funded Elite Account” (still demo-based), but with payout privileges. From there, top performers can be invited to a “LIVE Elite” account where they’re trading real capital.
That third tier? No published criteria. No guaranteed timeline. No transparency about who gets invited or when.
ETF’s own website says top performers are “invited” to LIVE Elite. Invited. That’s a word that implies discretion on their end, not a defined promotion path. Traders on community forums report waiting weeks or months after multiple successful payouts before receiving any live account offer, and some never do. Others get invited relatively quickly.
So when the firm says they’ve paid out over $10 million to traders, it’s worth noting that most of those payouts came from Sim-Funded accounts, not live capital. How many traders have ever traded with ETF’s real money? That number doesn’t appear anywhere on their website.
None of this makes ETF a scam. The Sim-Funded payouts are real cash. Traders get paid, and there are plenty of screenshots on Discord to confirm it. But it does mean the “funded trader” promise comes with a significant asterisk, and if you’re expecting a traditional prop firm model where passing equals real capital deployment, ETF is going to feel misleading.
Know what you’re signing up for. That’s the whole point.
Evaluation Types: Actually Impressive
This is where ETF earns genuine credit. The challenge variety is the best in the futures space right now, full stop.
1-Step is the bread-and-butter option. Account sizes run from $50K to $300K, profit targets are 6-7% depending on size, with a trailing drawdown. You need a minimum of 5 trading days, so no passing overnight on one lucky CL trade. The trailing drawdown is the real challenge here: every time you hit a new unrealized high, your drawdown floor moves up with you. Traders burn through accounts on this one when they don’t bank profits aggressively enough.
EOD Drawdown was designed for swing traders who hate having to monitor intraday metrics. The drawdown only locks in at end of day, which gives you breathing room to manage positions without panicking every time your unrealized P&L dips. Traders who hold NQ positions across sessions specifically prefer this version.
Fast Track is exactly what it sounds like: compressed timelines, higher targets, and no free monthly reset if you fail. This is the version for experienced scalpers who are confident in their edge and want funding in days rather than weeks. If you blow it, you pay full price to retry. Community feedback strongly suggests avoiding Fast Track unless you’ve already demonstrated consistent performance somewhere else.
Static Drawdown is probably the most psychologically comfortable option for traders who get rattled by trailing mechanics. The drawdown floor doesn’t move. You always know your exact risk line. The trade-off is a higher profit target, but for position traders who need clarity over flexibility, it’s a worthwhile deal.
Diamond Hands is the only evaluation where you can hold overnight and through weekends. Everything else at ETF requires you to close positions within 1 minute of market close (per instrument). If you’re a swing trader and Diamond Hands isn’t in your budget, ETF might not actually be compatible with your strategy regardless of how attractive the rest of the platform looks. Worth verifying this before you pay anything.
The Consistency Rules Will Make Your Head Hurt
Okay, this is the part where ETF loses traders who don’t pay close attention.
Once you’re in a Sim-Funded account and trying to request payouts, two rules govern when a day “counts”:
Active Trading Day (ATD): A day only qualifies if you earn at least $200 in realized profit AND at least 23% of your best-ever ATD P&L. That second part is the killer. Say your best day ever on the account was a $3,000 winner trading ES. Now every subsequent day needs to earn at least $690 to count toward your ATD minimum, even if you’re consistently profitable. Anything less doesn’t count. You need 8 ATDs to request a payout.
40% Consistency Rule: At the time of any withdrawal request, your single best ATD can’t represent more than 40% of your total accumulated profits (including previous withdrawals). So if you hammered a $5,000 day in week one, you’re going to be trading for a while to dilute that day’s percentage before you can pull money out.
Traders on forums consistently complain that these rules aren’t explained clearly during the evaluation phase. They show up as a surprise when you’re actually trying to get paid. Multiple Trustpilot reviews specifically call out the 23% consistency rule as “absurd” and “tough to track.” One community member described it as having rules complicated enough that you almost need a spreadsheet running in parallel with your trading.
I’m genuinely not sure why ETF chose 23% specifically. Why not 20%? Why not 25%? The documentation doesn’t explain the logic, and it feels like an oddly precise number that wasn’t derived from any particular trading philosophy. Maybe I’m missing something, but it strikes me as the kind of rule that was written to solve a firm-side problem (preventing one-hit-wonder payouts) without much consideration for how confusing it would be to track in real-time.
Platform Access Is Legitimately Good
Whatever you think of ETF’s payout structure, the platform flexibility is a real differentiator. Rithmic integration means you can use NinjaTrader, Tradovate, TradingView, Quantower, and a dozen other tools without platform restrictions. No lock-ins. No single mandatory interface.
Free NinjaTrader license is included on evaluation and Elite accounts, which is a solid perk, that license normally runs around $50/month on its own. Data fees apply once you declare professional trader status ($128/month per exchange for CME, COMEX, NYMEX, CBOT), which is standard but something to account for in your cost math.
Traders report solid execution quality with no notable lag complaints on NinjaTrader or Tradovate accounts. The 76 available contracts cover everything you’d want: ES, NQ, MNQ, MES, CL, GC, ZB, SI, and deeper cuts into agricultural and European rate futures if that’s your thing.
What’s missing: MetaTrader. MT4 and MT5 aren’t supported. If you’ve built your whole workflow around metatrader platforms, you’ll need to adapt. Also, no stocks, no spot forex. ETF is futures-only.
The Fee Structure, All of It
This is where ETF gets complicated and where some traders feel blindsided. Let’s actually map it out.
Evaluation cost: Varies by account size and type, generally starting in the $75–$200 range depending on the program.
Sim-Funded activation: After you pass, you pay either $87/month or a one-time fee ranging from $150 to $300 depending on account size. This is the fee that trips people up. You passed the challenge, and now you have to pay again to activate your funded account? That’s how it works. ETF does offer a “Double Down Deal” that can lower the monthly rate if you prepay, dropping the effective cost to $47/month in some scenarios.
Reset fee: $75 flat if you blow your account during evaluation. (Not available for Fast Track.)
Market data: $128/month per exchange if you’re declared a professional trader. Non-professional status avoids this, but make sure you’re declaring accurately.
Commissions: $2.00 per mini contract, $0.62 per micro. Standard.
So for a $100K 1-Step account, you’re looking at an evaluation fee, then $87/month in activation fees until you’ve earned enough to cover your drawdown and start pulling consistent payouts. The monthly drain adds up, and traders who take 3+ months to navigate the ATD/consistency requirements can end up spending significantly more than they anticipated in total activation costs.
This is one of the clearest criticisms in community feedback. ETF markets itself as affordable, and the evaluation entry points are competitive. But the ongoing monthly fees make this expensive if your path to payouts is anything but smooth.
What the Community Actually Says
Trustpilot is sitting around 3.8 out of 5 from 1,000+ reviews, which is mixed. The pattern in the reviews is pretty telling.
Positive reviews tend to focus on payout speed (traders report same-day or next-day approvals in recent months), the Discord community (15,000+ members with active mod support), and the variety of account options. Several traders specifically mention getting 8+ payouts without issues and praise the customer support response times for basic questions.
The negative reviews cluster around a few specific complaints: account closures that felt unexplained, the complexity of the ATD and consistency rules, payout requests taking longer than advertised, and the feeling of being strung along on the sim-funded model without ever receiving a LIVE Elite invitation.
One review from a trader who’d been with the firm for two years stood out. Described operating three Sim-Funded accounts successfully, multiple payouts received, then starting to feel like the LIVE Elite path was a moving target rather than an achievable milestone. That experience doesn’t appear to be universal, but it’s representative of a recurring frustration in the community.
The Discord account ban issue is worth mentioning too. Multiple traders have reported getting removed from the Discord server after raising concerns publicly. If accurate,, is a bad look for any firm positioning itself as community-first.
ETF does respond to Trustpilot reviews actively, which is a credibility marker. Bad actors in this space typically don’t engage. Whether the responses actually resolve the underlying complaints is another question.
Who ETF Actually Makes Sense For
Intraday scalpers and day traders trading ES, NQ, or CL are probably the best fit here. The platform quality supports high-frequency execution, the no-daily-loss-limit structure on most evaluation types gives you flexibility, and the 1-Step challenge is achievable with a disciplined edge.
Multi-strategy traders who want to run several accounts simultaneously get genuine value from the 20-account single-login feature. If you’re running different strategies and need multiple funded accounts, ETF’s infrastructure for this is one of the best available.
Beginners who are realistic about timelines. The 15–20% pass rate is higher than industry average, which suggests the evaluation criteria are achievable. The low evaluation cost entry points make the financial risk tolerable.
Swing traders: be cautious. Diamond Hands is the only model that accommodates overnight holds. If the Diamond Hands pricing doesn’t work for your strategy, you’re essentially getting a firm that closes your positions at market end whether you want it to or not.
Traders who want a clear, transparent path to real capital. This might not be your place. If the ultimate goal is trading real firm capital on a defined promotion schedule, ETF’s opaque LIVE Elite invitation process is going to be a source of frustration.
The Bottom Line
ETF is a legitimate operation with a genuinely creative product lineup. The evaluation variety is the best I’ve seen for futures-focused traders, the platform flexibility is excellent, and the payouts on Sim-Funded accounts are real and documented. They’ve paid out over $10 million since 2022, which isn’t nothing.
The problems are structural and worth knowing going in. The sim-funded model means you’re not trading real capital even after “passing.” The ATD and 40% consistency rules are genuinely complex and create payout friction that surprises a lot of traders. The ongoing monthly fee can make the total cost of participation significantly higher than the evaluation price suggests. And the path to LIVE Elite accounts has no published criteria.
For traders who understand the model and approach it as a structured payout vehicle while building a track record, ETF works and works well based on community feedback. For traders expecting a conventional prop firm experience where passing equals funded, expect to recalibrate expectations.