Blue Guardian Reports $6.3 Million Paid in September Across 4,569 Payouts, and an 11.44% Phase 1 Forex Pass Rate
Blue Guardian has reported $6,305,209.95 paid to traders in September across 4,569 payouts, an average of $1,379.54 per payout, alongside evaluation pass rates that are rather less flattering than the payout headline. The payout total is the number the firm is promoting. The pass rates sitting next to it are the number funded traders should actually read, because together they describe what the $6.3 million cost the wider pool of challenge buyers to produce.
What the September Payout Numbers Actually Say
The headline figures are specific, which is useful. Blue Guardian reports $6,305,209.95 in total payouts, 4,569 individual payouts, and an average payout of $1,379.54. The firm also says its top three payouts for the month were $9,467, $9,000 and $8,500, and it has not published details of the remaining seven in its top ten.
One qualification matters before anyone divides the total by a trader count. The 4,569 figure counts payout transactions, not unique traders. A single trader who withdrew four times in September appears four times in that number. That makes the average payout a useful measure of typical withdrawal size and a poor measure of what a typical funded trader earned over the month. Blue Guardian has not published a unique trader count or a median payout, and without either, the per-trader picture cannot be reconstructed from what is on the page.
The firm also reports an average processing time of under one hour. Read that as approval speed rather than settlement speed. Approval is the step the firm controls; the time funds take to arrive depends on the payment rail and the trader’s provider, and Blue Guardian’s figure does not cover that leg.
The Pass Rates Are the More Informative Half
Blue Guardian published evaluation outcomes alongside the payout data, and this is where the report earns its interest. On the forex side, Phase 1 shows 11.44% passed, 58.04% failed and 30.39% still in progress. Phase 2 shows 31.10% passed, 38.51% failed and 28.79% in progress. On the futures side, Phase 1 shows 21.34% passed, 64.25% failed and 17.82% in progress.
Take the forex route end to end. If roughly 11% clear Phase 1 and roughly 31% of those clear Phase 2, a trader buying a two-phase forex challenge is looking at something in the region of a 3% to 4% chance of reaching a funded account, before the funded stage imposes its own attrition. The in-progress share means those numbers will shift as open evaluations resolve, and a firm reporting month by month will see the completed cohort change, so these are a snapshot rather than a settled long-run rate.
The futures Phase 1 result is the outlier worth flagging. A 21.34% pass rate is roughly double the forex Phase 1 figure, but the futures failure rate is also higher at 64.25%, with far fewer accounts left in progress. That pattern is what you would expect from a one-stage structure that resolves faster and more decisively than a two-phase forex evaluation. It does not mean futures is easier overall; it means the evaluation reaches a verdict sooner.
Firms are not obliged to publish pass rates at all, and most do not. Blue Guardian putting them beside its payout total is more transparency than the sector norm, and that is worth acknowledging even when the numbers are unflattering. Our guide to how prop firm evaluation rules work in 2026 covers why the drawdown and consistency structures behind these rates matter more than the profit target most traders fixate on.
What These Figures Do and Do Not Verify
Everything above is Blue Guardian’s own reporting. There is no independent audit attached, no third-party attestation, and no breakdown that would let an outside party reconcile the payout total against the number of funded accounts. That is the normal state of affairs across this industry, and it applies equally to the firms posting much larger monthly numbers.
What self-reported figures can still tell you is something about consistency and specificity. A firm that publishes an exact total to the cent, a transaction count, an average, named top payouts and stage-by-stage pass rates every month is producing a record that can be compared against itself over time. A firm that publishes a rounded headline figure and nothing else is not. Month-to-month consistency in the shape of a report is a weaker signal than an audit, but it is not nothing.
Blue Guardian also has a payout term that traders should read separately from these statistics. The firm’s policy applies a 3% fee on withdrawals, which is a detail that does not appear in a payout headline but does affect what a trader receives. Anyone comparing these numbers against another firm’s should check whether the comparison is gross or net of withdrawal charges. Our overview of how prop firm payouts actually work walks through the fees and processing conditions that sit between an approved request and money in an account.
How to Use a Monthly Payout Report Without Being Misled by It
Payout totals are the most heavily marketed statistic in prop trading and among the least useful in isolation. A larger total usually means a larger firm rather than a better one. A firm with ten times the traders should pay out roughly ten times as much, and neither figure says anything about the odds facing the trader buying a challenge this week.
The figures that do travel between firms are the ones expressed as rates. A pass rate is comparable. An average payout is comparable if you know whether it is per transaction or per trader. A processing time is comparable if you know whether it measures approval or arrival. Blue Guardian has supplied the pass rates and has been clear that its payout count is transactions, which makes most of its report usable in a cross-firm comparison. The gap is the missing unique trader count.
For traders using this kind of disclosure to narrow a shortlist, the practical move is to compare rates rather than totals, and to treat the funded stage as a separate filter from the evaluation. Our 2026 prop firm comparison on rules, costs and payouts sets the figures side by side, and our decision framework for choosing a prop firm covers how to weigh disclosure quality against headline pricing.
What This Means for the Broader Prop Industry
Monthly payout reporting has become close to compulsory in this sector. Firms publish because rivals publish, and a quiet month reads as a bad month whether or not it was. The result is a steady stream of totals that look impressive and compare badly, because almost none of them come with the denominators that would make them meaningful.
The more interesting development is the small but growing number of firms attaching pass rates to those totals. Blue Guardian’s September report shows why that combination is more honest than a payout figure alone: the two numbers describe opposite ends of the same business, and reading them together gives a trader a far more accurate sense of the distribution than either does by itself. A firm willing to publish an 11.44% Phase 1 pass rate next to a $6.3 million payout total is making a claim that can be checked against its own future disclosures.
If that practice spreads, the competitive pressure in the sector shifts slightly away from who can print the biggest number and towards who can stand behind the ratio. If it does not spread, payout totals will keep inflating while remaining almost useless for comparison, and the traders who benefit will be the ones who learned to ask what the denominator was.
Read Our Blue Guardian Review →
Frequently Asked Questions About This Story
Enjoyed this article? Add JoinProp as a preferred source on Google.
