PropShopTrader has published the payout terms for its rebuilt futures accounts, confirming a 90% profit share, unlimited payout requests and a three trading day wait before Pro accounts become payout eligible. The firm set the figures out in a September 11 walkthrough of its move onto PropAccount and FPFX Technologies infrastructure, and the same numbers now sit in the plan comparison on its own website. That matters because when PropShopTrader split its futures offer into Pro, Flex and Direct earlier this month, the prices were public but almost nothing that decides what a funded trader actually takes home was. Traders were being asked to pick between three entry routes with no published profit split, no payout schedule and no minimum trading day count. Those blanks are now filled.
What PropShopTrader Has Now Put in Writing
The firm’s plan comparison lists a 90% profit share on all three paths, Pro, Flex and Direct alike. Payout requests are listed as unlimited on each. Plan sizes run from 25K through 150K, and accounts trade on Tickblaze and Rithmic, with the firm saying more platform options are on the way.
Two further figures are worth pulling out because they are easy to miss. Each path carries a maximum amount per payout request, and the firm states explicitly that this is a per request ceiling rather than a lifetime cap. Pro is listed at $1,500 per payout. Flex and Direct are both listed at $1,000. Separately, the firm caps combined allocation at $1 million across accounts, which at the 25K size works out at up to 40 accounts held at once.
The September 11 recap also stated that the legacy funded payout benchmark ladder has been removed from the new accounts. That is the kind of change that rarely makes headlines and often matters more than the headline numbers, because benchmark ladders are the mechanism that holds a trader’s first withdrawal back until an account has cleared a profit threshold the trader did not necessarily plan around.
The Payout Clock Is the Real Difference Between the Three Paths
On price, the three routes look like a simple ladder. Pro is listed at $109, Flex at $79 and Direct at $329 before any discount. The obvious reading is that Direct costs more because it skips the assessment entirely and drops the trader straight onto the funded structure.
The payout terms complicate that reading. Pro, the middle price, has the fastest clock and the highest ceiling: payout eligibility from three funded trading days, up to $1,500 per request. Flex and Direct both sit on five funded trading days with a $1,000 ceiling. So the most expensive path on the list is not the fastest path to money out. A trader paying $329 for Direct is buying the removal of the assessment stage, not a faster or larger withdrawal.
Whether that is worth it depends entirely on how a trader values the assessment. Someone confident of clearing a $1,500 profit target on a 25K account, which is 6%, is paying roughly $220 extra to skip a step they would probably clear anyway, and getting a slower payout clock in return. Someone who has repeatedly failed assessments may read the same $220 as cheap. Neither reading is wrong, but the pricing does not point in one direction the way a simple good, better, best ladder would. This is the kind of structural detail we weigh when we look at how a futures prop firm handles scaling, because entry price tends to be the least durable part of the decision.
A 90% Split Sits at the Top of the Current Range
Ninety percent is at the upper end of what funded futures traders are offered. It is not unique, and it is no longer rare, but it is above the 80% that still anchors much of the market. Readers working out what that is worth in practice can compare the structures in our guide to prop firm profit splits.
The split on its own is a poor guide to earnings, though, and PropShopTrader’s own numbers show why. Three variables decide throughput: the percentage, the ceiling per request, and how often a request can be made. A 90% split behind a $1,000 per request ceiling on a five day cycle behaves very differently from the same 90% behind a $1,500 ceiling on a three day cycle. Because requests are unlimited, the ceiling is a throttle on speed rather than a hard limit on total earnings, and a consistently profitable trader on Pro can cycle requests faster and in larger increments than the same trader on Direct.
This is where a lot of comparison shopping goes wrong. A firm advertising 90% with a long payout window and a low per request cap can pay out more slowly in practice than a firm advertising 80% with a short window and a high cap. The headline percentage is the number that gets marketed, and it is usually the least informative of the three.
What JoinProp Cannot Confirm Yet
Several things remain unclear, and it is worth naming them rather than filling the gaps with assumptions.
The plan comparison lists no daily loss cap on any of the three paths. A funded account with a maximum drawdown but no daily loss limit is a meaningfully different risk framework from one with both, and we would want the firm to confirm directly that no daily loss rule applies to funded accounts rather than inferring it from a table.
On consistency rules, a 20% funded consistency requirement is shown against Direct. The equivalent figure for Pro and Flex is not stated in the same comparison. PropShopTrader has not confirmed to us whether the other two paths carry a consistency rule at a different threshold or none at all, and we are not going to guess.
The per payout ceilings of $1,500 and $1,000 are quoted against the 25K size. Whether those ceilings rise with account size up through 150K is not stated. Nor has the firm published how long an approved payout takes to reach a trader, which is a separate question from when a trader becomes eligible to ask. Eligibility after three funded trading days is a rule about the request. It says nothing about processing time.
Finally, the firm is running 25% off all three plans with the code PST, which brings the 25K sizes to $81.75 for Pro, $59.25 for Flex and $246.75 for Direct. No end date has been published for that code. Traders who want to understand how these offers are usually structured can read our explainer on prop trading discount codes, but the practical point is simple: an undated discount is not a deadline, and it is also not a guarantee the code will still be live next week.
What This Means for the Broader Prop Industry
The sequence here is the interesting part. A firm rebuilt its entire futures offer, published prices for three new paths, and only afterwards published the payout terms attached to them. For several days traders could buy an account without knowing the profit split. That is not unusual in this industry, and that is the problem.
Pricing is easy to publish because it is the part of the offer designed to attract. Payout terms are harder because they are the part that costs the firm money, and they are also the part a trader cannot evaluate from the outside once the purchase is made. A market in which the attractive numbers ship first and the binding ones follow later is a market in which the buying decision is routinely made on incomplete information.
The countervailing trend is real, though, and PropShopTrader is part of it. Removing a benchmark ladder, listing payout requests as unlimited, and stating plainly that a ceiling is per request rather than a lifetime cap are all moves toward terms a trader can actually check. Three years ago, per payout ceilings were frequently buried in terms of service documents and discovered at the withdrawal screen. Publishing them in a comparison table, next to the price, is a lower bar than it sounds like and still an improvement on where much of the industry was.
The migration onto third party infrastructure points the same way. Firms moving onto shared account and technology platforms inherit those platforms’ conventions for how payouts are requested, tracked and displayed, which tends to standardise the parts of the experience traders previously had to take on trust. It also concentrates risk: when many firms sit on the same infrastructure, a problem at the provider becomes an industry problem rather than a single firm problem. Both of those things are now true at once, and the prop firms worth watching over the next year are the ones that treat published payout terms as a baseline rather than a marketing decision.
Read Our PropShopTrader Review →
