Verdict: Trader2B is one of the few funded-account programmes built on real US equities rather than futures or CFDs, and its challenge contract is better drafted than most. It suits disciplined US-hours day traders who can complete 200 round trades without a time limit, and not anyone budgeting a single challenge fee: the evaluation bills monthly, and the biggest caveat is that passing triggers a market-data cost of $150 to $250 a month that the programme contract calls mandatory while the help centre calls it optional.
Key terms, from Trader2B’s own documents
- Evaluation cost: $99, $199 or $299 a month for Toro25, Toro100 and Toro250, falling to $66, $133 and $199 on the three-month plan — a recurring subscription, not a one-off fee (pricing page).
- Buying power: $25,000, $100,000 and $250,000, plus a free $100,000 plan; profit target 6% of buying power in each case (Free ToroChallenge page).
- Maximum drawdown: $3,000 on a $100,000 account, so the balance may not fall below $97,000, counting unrealised losses, commissions and fees (Free Toro100 Program Terms, §16, updated 17 July 2026).
- Daily loss limit: $500 on a $100,000 account, again including unrealised losses (help centre).
- Minimum trading days: none — instead 200 completed round trades, with no time limit, at $3 commission per 1,000 shares (trading rules).
- Profit split: 95% on Toro25, 97% on Toro100, 99% on Toro250 — and 50% on the free plan.
- Payout frequency: bi-weekly, or weekly on Toro250, by PayPal or wire (help centre).
An equities challenge, billed by the month
Almost every prop firm reviewed on this site sells futures or CFD evaluations. Trader2B sells something different: a simulated evaluation on real NYSE and Nasdaq stocks and ETFs, day-trading only, with positions closed before the 16:00 ET cutoff. Because it streams real-time exchange data it bills monthly rather than once — “Stock exchanges require data subscriptions to be billed on a monthly basis,” its pricing FAQ explains — and renews automatically. It also publishes a figure that makes the model easy to price: “In 2025, the average time to pass the evaluation is approximately 52 days.” At that pace a Toro100 trader pays two cycles, about $398, which is also what the three-month plan costs.
Breaching the drawdown does not stop the billing. On a breach, “your account’s buying power will be set to $1 until you reset your account”, and a separate article prices that reset at $100 while the subscription runs on. Neither figure appears on the pricing page, which lists resets simply as “Available”.
The data fee: mandatory in the contract, optional in the help centre
The most consequential number in this review is not on the pricing page. Once a trader passes and is approved for live capital, US exchanges classify them as a professional market-data subscriber, because they are trading firm money rather than their own. Trader2B’s post-pass guide states that “Professional market-data fees typically range from $150 to $250 per month”; an older article puts the floor at “$154.50/month”.
Two documents on the same site then disagree about whether that is compulsory. The help centre says it is not: “Professional real-time market data is optional from trader2B’s perspective. Some funded traders choose not to subscribe because they already have another permitted source.” The binding contract says the opposite. Section 42 of the Free Toro100 Program Terms is headed “MANDATORY PROFESSIONAL MARKET DATA REGISTRATION”, calls it “a mandatory condition of the trader2B Live Funded Program”, and allows “no trader2B exceptions” — including for “the Trader’s preference not to receive Professional Market Data”.
The contract settles which governs: where the Program Terms “conflict with advertising, marketing materials, social-media content, support messages, or general educational content, these Program Terms and the Account-specific rules will control.” On that reading the fee is mandatory. Trader2B does promise “commercially reasonable best efforts” to defer it against future profits, but §46 is titled “NO GUARANTEE OF MARKET DATA FEE DEFERRAL” and confirms simulated profit cannot offset the bill.
For the free $100,000 plan the arithmetic is unforgiving, because it pays a 50% share. At $154.50 of monthly data costs, a trader on that path needs roughly $310 of gross monthly profit before keeping anything, and closer to $500 at the top of the range. The headline offer is a free challenge, not a free funded account.
Payouts: the section that could not be filled
The mechanics are clear enough: funded traders request withdrawals from a “Payment Withdrawal” menu, choose PayPal or wire, and wait for review, though the firm warns a request “may reduce the account equity and available risk capacity” on a scaled account. What is missing is evidence that payouts happen. Trader2B publishes no cumulative payout total, no pass rate and no funded-trader count. Its leaderboard page, which promises to “track the top-performing traders in real time”, renders the word “Loading…” and no data at all, and its reviews page loads no reviews. Independent evidence is no better: the firm holds a TrustScore of 3.2 from 78 Trustpilot reviews, and the five-star mass sits in 2017 to 2021 while the recent cohort is largely negative. Across those reviews, both app stores and a payout-proof aggregator on which Trader2B does not appear, this review found exactly one first-hand account of money received, dated December 2017, before the ToroChallenge existed. Several reviewers describe being funded; none since describes being paid.
The firm’s own reply to a July 2026 complaint is the clearest statement of what a challenge balance is worth. Answering a trader who said he had earned about $1,700 before his account was suspended, Trader2B wrote on Trustpilot: “Any profit displayed in the FREE ToroChallenge® account was simulated performance only and was not a withdrawable balance.”
The deeper issue is where the payout terms live. Trader2B’s general terms and conditions, last modified 14 March 2025, contain the word “payout” exactly once, in the footer disclaimer: there is no profit-share clause, no withdrawal schedule and no governing-law section. The document is also visibly incomplete, its sections running 2 to 10, then jumping to 23, then 34, 35 and 36 — 23 of its 36 sections are missing. The programme contract explains where the real terms sit: a “separate Live Funded Trader Agreement” setting profit share, withdrawal schedule, market-data fees and scaling rules, which “controls” where it conflicts. It is not published, so every profit split advertised rests on a contract no prospective trader can read before paying.
The rules that end challenges
The pass criterion is described two different ways. The pricing page and the contract require a “Consistency Score” of at least 50%, a discretionary composite of profit distribution, position sizes, symbol concentration and average win versus average loss. But the help centre’s trading-rules article states the requirement as the target “with a minimum of 200 round trades with a Win Rate of 50% or more”, and defines win rate elsewhere as the plain percentage of profitable trades. Those are different tests: a trader with a 40% win rate and large winners passes one and fails the other.
Both loss limits count unrealised losses. The $500 daily limit and the $3,000 drawdown include open-position marks, commissions and fees, so an intraday excursion can breach an account that would have recovered. The contract adds that risk controls “are not guaranteed to reject or close every Order before a limit is exceeded”.
Buying power is discretionary. One help article says traders “might start with a smaller or different amount till they show a consistent positive return”, and that “increasing and decreasing package size is discretionary-based”, despite the pricing page selling a fixed figure.
Cancellation windows conflict. The pricing FAQ says a subscription can be cancelled “at any time”; the billing article requires “at least 10 days” notice; the refund policy says “7 business days prior to your renewal date” and deducts a $50 fee. A trader following the first could be billed again.
What each firm publishes about itself
| Published on the firm’s own site | Trader2B | Topstep | FTMO |
|---|---|---|---|
| Largest evaluation account | $250,000 | Not stated on homepage | $200,000, scaling to $2m |
| Cumulative payouts disclosed | None published | $1.4bn all-time | $650m worldwide |
| Pass rate disclosed | None published | 16.8% of 2025 Combines | None on homepage |
| Share of funded traders paid | None published | 33.3% in 2025 | None on homepage |
| Headline profit share | Up to 99%; 50% on the free plan | Up to 90% | Not stated on homepage |
| Recurring cost once funded | $150–$250 a month for data | Not stated on homepage | Not stated on homepage |
Figures accessed 5 September 2026 from topstep.com and ftmo.com. Trader2B’s own comparison page overstates the gap twice: it lists FTMO as two-step only, though FTMO now sells a one-step challenge too, and claims “15+ Years” against FTMO’s “10 Years” though both brands date from 2015.
Regulatory posture
Trader2B markets itself as operating “since 2010”, tracing the business to SFG Trading Ltd, a Canadian proprietary trading firm. The documentary record is younger: the trader2b.com domain was created on 13 October 2015, and the operating entity, trader2B Software Solutions LLC, was filed with the Florida Division of Corporations on 27 September 2019 under document L19000244836, administratively dissolved in September 2021 and reinstated a month later.
The company holds no financial-services registration of any kind: a FINRA BrokerCheck firm search returns zero results, as do the SEC’s adviser database and an EDGAR full-text search. That is consistent with how it describes itself. Its risk disclosure says the firm “Is not a broker-dealer” and “Does not execute trades on behalf of clients as a brokerage”, and the site footer calls it “a technology and recruiting firm, not a broker-dealer”.
That matters more for an equities programme than a futures one. The US equity desks this site has reviewed — T3 Trading Group, Chimera Securities and Bright Trading — route live equity trading through registered broker-dealers and licensed traders. Trader2B does not. Its risk disclosure says only that live capital “may be provided through trader2B or affiliated entities under separate agreements”, naming neither the entities nor their regulator, and no execution broker or clearing firm appears in its legal pages. See also our coverage of diverging prop-trading regulation and of whose money sits in a funded account.
Housekeeping is weak throughout. The firm publishes three different registered addresses across its terms, its contact page and the Florida filing. Its privacy policy still claims participation in the EU-US Privacy Shield, a framework invalidated in 2020. And its tradable-symbol page carries an FAQ never edited from the website template, telling readers that “The sample symbols are provided by the theme as defaults” — so the published symbol list should not be treated as authoritative.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Trader2B challenge a one-off fee?
No. It is a monthly subscription of $99 to $299, renewing automatically until cancelled, which the firm attributes to exchange rules on real-time data. On its own 52-day average time to pass, budget about two cycles, or $398.
Is the free $100,000 account genuinely free?
The evaluation carries no fee and needs no card. But the profit share is 50% rather than 97%, no payouts are available from the evaluation account, and the free-challenge page notes that if free real-time data is unavailable, “traders may need to cover data costs”.
Does Trader2B trade real money?
Not during the evaluation, which is simulated, using virtual buying power on real NYSE and Nasdaq data. Live capital follows only after a final review, KYC, market-data registration and acceptance of a separate funded agreement the firm does not publish.
What could not be verified?
The Live Funded Trader Agreement, which sets the actual profit share and withdrawal schedule. Trader2B publishes no pass-rate or payout statistics, no first-hand payout report dated after 2017 could be located, and 23 sections of the general terms are missing.
This review is independent editorial analysis and is not financial, investment, or trading advice, and is not an endorsement or solicitation. The Industry Spread has no affiliate or referral relationship with the firms covered. Proprietary trading challenges carry a fee that is generally non-refundable, most participants do not reach a funded account, and funded capital is the firm’s capital, not the trader’s. Terms change frequently — always verify current rules directly with the firm before paying any fee.
Abdelaziz Fathi
Abdelaziz Fathi covers the intersection of forex/CFD brokerage, regulation, liquidity, fintech, and digital assets. With a B.A. in Finance and hands-on industry exposure, Aziz blends analytical rigor with clear storytelling to make complex market structure understandable for traders, brokers, and fintech professionals.
