Leveraged Launches ONE Challenge From $29 With a 6% Target, No Time Limit and a 20% Consistency Score on Payouts
Leveraged has launched the ONE Challenge, a single-phase evaluation starting at $29 for a $10,000 account and running to $188 for $100,000. The evaluation itself is unusually permissive: one 6% target, no time limit and no consistency rule while you are proving yourself. The tighter rules arrive after you pass, in the form of a 20% consistency score attached to payouts and a requirement to log three profitable days before you can withdraw anything. That trade, a loose evaluation paired with a disciplined funded stage, is worth understanding properly before the entry price does the deciding for you.
What the ONE Challenge Costs and What You Get
The pricing runs $29 for a $10,000 account, $49 for $25,000, $99 for $50,000 and $188 for $100,000. Leveraged describes this as a single upfront payment, meaning the number you see is the number you pay, with no activation fee charged after you pass the evaluation. That second detail matters more than it usually gets credit for. A meaningful number of firms advertise a low challenge fee and then invoice again at funding, which can add a third or more to the real cost of reaching a funded account.
Tradable markets cover forex, cryptocurrencies, commodities, metals and stocks. At $29 for the smallest tier, the ONE Challenge sits at the low end of the market, and our list of the best cheap prop firm challenges under $100 gives the comparison points if price is the deciding factor.
The account sizes step up in a way that rewards paying more per unit of capital only at the top tier. At $29 for $10,000 the cost is 0.29% of the account, at $49 for $25,000 it is 0.20%, at $99 for $50,000 it is 0.20% again, and at $188 for $100,000 it is 0.19%. In other words the discount for buying a larger account is modest, so there is little pricing incentive to size up beyond what the trader can actually manage. That is a reasonable structure. Firms that price the largest accounts far below proportional cost tend to push traders into sizes they are not ready to risk-manage.
The Evaluation Rules Are Genuinely Light
There is one phase. The target is 6% profit with no deadline, so the account does not expire if a month goes quietly. Risk limits are a 3% daily loss cap and a 6% maximum trailing drawdown. There is no consistency requirement during the evaluation, which means a single strong day can carry a disproportionate share of the 6% without disqualifying the attempt.
Removing the time limit is the single most trader-friendly element here. Time pressure is what turns a workable plan into oversized positions in the last week, and firms that drop it consistently see fewer accounts breached for reasons unrelated to skill. Removing the consistency rule at the evaluation stage compounds that, because the trader is not being asked to distribute profit evenly while also hitting a target.
The constraint that deserves attention is the 6% trailing drawdown. A trailing limit moves up with your equity high, which means the room you have is measured against your best moment rather than your starting balance. Traders who are used to a static drawdown routinely misjudge this and breach after a winning run rather than a losing one. If the mechanics are not second nature, our explainer on what drawdown means in prop trading is the place to start.
The Funded Stage Is Where the Rules Tighten
Once funded, the profit split is 80% to the trader. The daily loss cap stays at 3% and the trailing drawdown stays at 6%, so the risk envelope does not change. What changes is what is required to actually get paid.
Payouts are processed every 14 days, and before a withdrawal can be requested the account needs three profitable days, each with a minimum 0.5% profit. Layered on top is a 20% consistency score, meaning no single day can account for more than a fifth of the profit being withdrawn. Leveraged states there is no cap on the payout amount itself.
Read together, these rules describe a specific kind of trader. Someone who grinds out several modest winning days will clear all three conditions without noticing them. Someone who makes their month on one outsized session will pass the evaluation easily and then find the payout blocked until the profit distribution evens out. That is not a hidden catch, it is stated policy, but it is the opposite shape to the evaluation and it catches people who only read the front page. Our breakdown of how prop firm profit splits work in 2026 covers where an 80% split sits against the current market.
How This Compares With the Rest of the Market
An 80% split is standard rather than generous. Several firms advertise 90% at comparable price points, though often with either a higher entry cost or an activation fee that closes the gap. A 6% single-phase target is competitive and sits below the 8% to 10% that two-step evaluations typically total across both stages.
The 3% daily loss limit is tighter than the 4% or 5% common elsewhere, and paired with a 6% trailing drawdown it leaves a narrow working range. On a $100,000 account that is $3,000 of daily room against a trailing ceiling of $6,000. For a scalper running small size that is ample. For a swing trader holding through a session, it is not much.
Fourteen-day payouts are middling. Faster cycles exist, and several firms now advertise on demand or weekly withdrawals. The three profitable day requirement effectively lengthens the first cycle for anyone who does not trade frequently. Traders comparing rule sets across firms should work through our guide to prop firm evaluation rules, consistency and drawdown before committing.
One thing Leveraged has not published, at least not with the launch material, is a scaling plan or any detail on what happens to the account after sustained profitability. Nor has it stated whether the ONE Challenge is a permanent product line or a limited introductory offer. Both are fair questions to put to support before buying, and neither should be assumed.
There is also the question of how the 20% consistency score is measured, which Leveraged has not spelled out in the launch material. Consistency rules vary between firms in whether they count the largest single day against total profit in the withdrawal period, against total profit since funding, or against a rolling window. Those three produce materially different outcomes for the same trading record. Until the firm publishes the calculation, traders should ask support to state it explicitly rather than assuming the most favourable reading.
What This Means for the Broader Prop Industry
The ONE Challenge is a clean example of where competitive pressure has landed. Firms have largely stopped competing on how hard the evaluation is, because that race was won by whoever removed the most rules, and it ended with one-step challenges, no time limits and no consistency requirements as the baseline. The competition has moved to the funded stage, where consistency scores, minimum profitable days and payout cadence now do the work that time limits and two-phase targets used to do.
That shift is broadly better for traders, but only if they read the second half of the rulebook. The cost of entry is now genuinely low and the evaluation is genuinely passable. The filter has simply relocated to the point where money leaves the firm rather than the point where it arrives. A trader who evaluates a firm purely on challenge difficulty and price is measuring the part that has been deliberately made easy.
Expect this structure to spread. Cheap one-step evaluations with disciplined payout conditions give firms predictable economics and give traders a realistic route to funding, which is a more stable arrangement than the high-fee, high-failure model that preceded it. The firms that will struggle are the ones offering the loose evaluation without the payout discipline, because that combination does not survive a run of outsized winners.
Frequently Asked Questions About This Story
Enjoyed this article? Add JoinProp as a preferred source on Google.
