PipFarm Puts a Second Attempt Behind a 20% Add-On, and One Step Light’s Consistency Rules Move to the Funded Account
PipFarm has put a second attempt at a failed challenge on sale as a paid add-on, priced at 20% of the base challenge price and selectable at checkout, according to an entry the firm published to its own changelog on 26 September 2026. If a trader breaches a trading rule during the challenge, a new account is issued automatically and the attempt starts again from the beginning. It applies to one-stage and two-stage challenges and not to Instant accounts. The same week also brought a quieter change that matters more to anyone already holding a One Step Light account, because the consistency rules that were removed from that challenge did not disappear. They moved to the funded account.
What the Retry Add-On Does, and What It Costs
The mechanics are simple and the firm states them plainly. Retry is bought at checkout alongside the challenge, it costs 20% of the base challenge price, and it is available on one-stage and two-stage challenges. Instant accounts are excluded. If the account breaches a trading rule during the challenge, a replacement account is issued automatically rather than on request, and the trader begins the evaluation again from the start. In its announcement to its mailing list, PipFarm adds that every add-on bought with the original account carries across to the replacement, and that the add-on works on One Step Light as well.
What makes this worth pricing carefully is that it is insurance, not a discount, and insurance is only good value when the premium is below the expected loss. At 20%, a trader is paying a fifth of the fee to avoid paying the full fee a second time, which is favourable arithmetic for anyone whose honest probability of breaching on the first attempt is above roughly one in five. Most traders who have failed an evaluation before are comfortably above that line. A trader who has never breached a rule is paying for cover they are less likely to draw on.
The detail PipFarm has not published is whether the retry can be drawn more than once. Nothing in the changelog entry states a limit, and nothing states that a replacement account itself carries the add-on forward. A trader who reads the entry as unlimited retries for a single 20% payment is reading in something the firm has not written. Until the firm says otherwise, the safe assumption is one replacement per purchase.
One Step Light Did Not Lose Its Consistency Rules, It Moved Them
This is the part most worth a trader’s attention, and it is the part a promotional summary is least likely to spell out. PipFarm’s changelog entry of 23 September, effective 12:00 GMT that day, removed the Consistency Score requirement and the Profitable Days requirement from the One Step Light challenge. Meeting the profit target is now enough to pass, which the firm points out can happen in a single day.
The same entry then states what applies once the account is funded. Weekly payouts run by default, and the funded account carries a Consistency Score of 40% and a requirement of four Profitable Days, each one defined as an increase of 0.25% of the initial balance. So the two rules that were taken off the evaluation are both present on the account that actually pays money. PipFarm’s own message to traders describes this as no Consistency Score and no Profitable Days on the challenge, which is accurate as far as it goes, and a trader who reads only that sentence will reasonably conclude the requirements are gone.
Whether this is better or worse for a trader depends entirely on where they tend to fail. Someone who repeatedly passes profit targets and then trips a consistency rule before withdrawing has gained nothing, because the rule is still standing between them and the payout. Someone who has been failing evaluations on consistency has been handed a genuinely easier route to funding, at the cost of meeting the same test later with real money on the line. For context on why these two rules decide so many outcomes, our guide to evaluation rules and drawdown sets out how each is measured.
One Step Light launched on 25 August 2026 as PipFarm’s lowest profit target challenge at 6%, and the firm described it then as the first PipFarm challenge to use an End of Day Trailing Max Loss, with pricing from $19 on a 5K account. None of that has been restated as changed.
Bundles, the ONESTEP Code and the 1 October Deadline
A third change landed on the same day as the One Step Light update. PipFarm has added a quantity selector so several identical challenges can be bought in one order, with the first account charged at the normal price and each additional account discounted, the discount increasing with each one added. The firm’s changelog puts the range at 10% to 40%. Its mailing list message gives a worked example: five $100 accounts come to $400, which is five for the price of four, and it says add-ons are discounted on the same scale.
Alongside that, PipFarm says its ONESTEP code takes 60% off every one-stage challenge, One Step Light included, and that the code expires on 1 October and cannot be combined with other vouchers, offers or XP. That is a firm published deadline rather than an affiliate code, which is what makes it worth naming. Traders comparing it against other live offers can check it on the PipFarm discount code page.
The firm also said it would show two unreleased items on a livestream on 27 September at 12:00 GMT: a build your own challenge feature and a new Swing account. That stream has now taken place, and PipFarm’s changelog carried no entry for either product when this report was checked afterwards, so neither has published rules and neither is covered here. A giveaway of 20 One Step Light accounts ran alongside the stream and closed at 12:30 GMT. Separately, PipFarm released its own Android build of the cTrader app to Google Play this week, which JoinProp covered in its report on the app launch.
What PipFarm Has Not Said
Several answers are missing that decide whether the Retry add-on is worth 20%. The firm has not said whether the retry can be used more than once, nor whether the replacement account carries the add-on forward. It has not said whether the 20% is calculated on the list price or on the price after a discount code, which changes the cash cost materially when a 60% code is in play. It has not said whether Retry can be bought at all in the same order as ONESTEP, given that the code is described as not combinable with other vouchers, offers or XP, a phrase that does not obviously cover a paid add-on either way.
It has not said whether a breach on the funded account triggers anything, or whether Retry covers only the evaluation stage. It has not published the per tier bundle discounts behind the stated 10% to 40% range, so a trader cannot calculate the cost of a four account order without going to checkout. And it has not said whether the bundle discount and ONESTEP can be applied to the same order.
None of these are objections to the products. They are the questions a trader should put to support in writing, and keep the reply, before paying for either.
What This Means for the Broader Prop Industry
Paid retries are the clearest sign yet that the evaluation fee has stopped being the product and become the entry price to a menu. The firms that led this sector charged once for a challenge and once again if you failed. The direction of travel now is to sell the failure case up front at a discount, alongside risk upgrades, profit share boosts and payout accelerators. For a disciplined trader that unbundling is useful, because it lets them pay only for the cover they actually need. For an undisciplined one it is a second and third chance to spend money on an account that was never likely to pay out, and the total spend on a single funding attempt can quietly pass what a straightforward evaluation used to cost.
The One Step Light change points at something else, and it matters more. When a firm moves a rule from the challenge to the funded account, the marketing headline improves and the trader’s real path does not necessarily get shorter. Removing a barrier before the money and reinstating it after the money is a change in where the friction sits, not a reduction in it. That is not a criticism unique to PipFarm, whose own dated changelog is where both halves of this story are documented. It is a reason to read any rule relaxation by asking one question: relaxed on which side of the payout. The measure that survives every rule rewrite is what a firm actually pays and how quickly, which is why the prop firm payouts tracker remains the comparison that matters most.
