PropShopTrader Puts Its Futures Accounts on Tickblaze and Rithmic, and Caps Each Payout Request at $1,500
PropShopTrader has taken its futures accounts live on two trading platforms, Tickblaze and Rithmic, with the Pro, Flex and Direct plans now available in $25,000 to $150,000 sizes on both. The firm told its list on 17 September that the accounts are open and that further platform options are on the way. The launch matters less for the platform names than for a number sitting underneath them: PropShopTrader’s own pricing detail caps a single payout request at $1,000 to $1,500 depending on the plan, on accounts running up to $150,000.
What Is Actually Live
The three futures paths JoinProp covered when PropShopTrader first split its offer into Pro, Flex and Direct are now purchasable on a chosen platform rather than existing only as a structure. Four account sizes are available on each path: $25,000, $50,000, $100,000 and $150,000. All three paths carry a 90% profit share.
Pro is the conventional route, described by the firm as one evaluation stage under fixed risk limits followed by a funded account. Flex runs an assessment with a different balance of objectives and risk parameters than Pro, which is the firm’s way of saying the targets and the limits move together rather than one being simply looser. Direct skips the evaluation entirely: the trader starts on the funded-account structure and trades under its rules from the first order, which is why it is the most expensive of the three by a wide margin.
The price gap is real. On a $25,000 Tickblaze account under the current 25% discount, Flex lists at $59.25 against a $79.00 regular price, Pro at $81.75 against $109.00, and Direct at $246.75 against $329.00. Direct costs roughly four times what Flex does at the same account size, which is the premium for skipping the assessment rather than a difference in what the funded account then pays.
The Payout Cap Deserves More Attention Than the Platforms
PropShopTrader’s plan detail states a maximum payout per request of $1,000 to $1,500 depending on the plan, with an unlimited number of requests allowed. Read quickly, the word unlimited does the reassuring work. Read carefully, the cap is the operative half of the sentence.
Consider what it means on the largest account. A trader on a $150,000 account who has built $9,000 in profit and holds a 90% share is owed $8,100. At a $1,500 ceiling per request, that is six separate requests, each presumably subject to whatever processing window the firm applies. The money is not withheld, but it arrives in instalments determined by the firm’s request policy rather than by the trader’s balance.
This is not unusual, and it is not by itself a warning sign. Per-request ceilings are a standard cash-flow control at futures firms and they exist partly to smooth payout obligations across a month. The problem is that a cap of this kind is rarely the headline number a trader compares when shopping, while the profit split almost always is. A 90% share with a $1,500 per-request ceiling and a 70% share with no ceiling are very different propositions for anyone trading size, and the comparison that most buyers actually run will show only the 90 and the 70.
JoinProp’s earlier piece on PropShopTrader’s published payout terms covered the 90% share and the waiting period on Pro. The per-request ceiling belongs in the same conversation, and traders sizing up a $150,000 account should price it in before deciding the split is the whole story.
What the Platform Choice Does and Does Not Change
PropShopTrader publishes connection guides for nine platforms in total: Tickblaze, Quantower, MultiCharts, Rithmic, Atas, Sierra Charts, BookMap, MotiveWave and Agena Trader. Only two of those, Tickblaze and Rithmic, carry the Pro, Flex and Direct futures plans. The rest are connection routes rather than account types, which is a distinction worth holding on to, because a firm listing nine supported platforms reads very differently from a firm selling accounts on two.
Rithmic is the established name here, a data and execution infrastructure layer that a long list of futures platforms connect through, and traders arriving from other futures firms will most likely have used it already. Tickblaze is the newer option in the prop context and has been appearing as a platform choice across the futures prop space this month. For a trader the practical question is not which is better in the abstract but which one their existing charting and order entry setup already talks to, because a platform choice made at checkout is a choice about the tools they will actually trade with for the life of the account.
What the platform does not change is the rule set. The objectives, the drawdown treatment and the payout policy belong to the plan, not to the platform, so choosing Tickblaze over Rithmic is a workflow decision rather than a risk one. Traders who assume otherwise, and there are always some, will find that the limits followed them across.
What PropShopTrader Has Not Confirmed
Three things are not clear from the firm’s public pages and a trader should settle them before buying.
First, whether the platform can be changed after purchase. The accounts are sold per platform, and nothing published says whether a trader who picks one and dislikes it can move without buying again. Second, whether pricing is identical across the two platforms for the same plan and size. The figures quoted above are the Tickblaze prices; JoinProp could not retrieve a full side by side pricing table covering both platforms, so the Rithmic prices should be checked at checkout rather than assumed to match. Third, exactly which plan carries the $1,000 ceiling and which carries the $1,500 one. The firm publishes the range but JoinProp could not confirm the mapping from the range to each specific plan, and on a per-request basis that difference is 50%.
None of these is a red flag. They are the ordinary gaps between what a firm puts on a pricing page and what a trader needs to know, and support should be able to answer all three in writing. JoinProp will update this story if PropShopTrader publishes the detail.
What This Means for the Broader Prop Industry
Futures prop firms have spent this year competing on platform choice, and it is easy to see why: it is a visible, cheap differentiator that does not require touching the risk model. Adding a platform costs an integration. Loosening a drawdown rule costs money. So the marketing has moved to the part of the product that is safest to change, and traders now get long lists of supported platforms from firms whose actual account terms are close to identical.
That makes the platform list a poor basis for choosing between firms, and it makes the unglamorous numbers, per-request payout ceilings, processing windows, drawdown measurement method, reset costs, the ones that separate them. A trader comparing futures firms on platform support alone is comparing the layer the firms find easiest to move.
The wider lesson is the one JoinProp keeps arriving at from different directions: headline terms are designed to be compared, and the terms that decide how much money reaches a trader’s bank account usually are not. That is the argument behind the framework for choosing a futures firm on payout behaviour rather than marketing, and it is the same reason a low entry price is a weak signal on its own, as the breakdown of what cheap prop firms actually cost over ninety days sets out. The platform question has its own version of this, covered in JoinProp’s look at how platform architecture shapes risk rather than just the interface.
For PropShopTrader specifically, going live on two platforms with a 90% share across all three paths is a competitive position, and the pricing on Flex is genuinely low for a futures assessment. Whether that adds up for a given trader depends almost entirely on the numbers in the payout policy, and those are the ones to read twice.
Read Our PropShopTrader Review →
