Verdict
Leeloo Trading suits futures traders who want a long-established US operator and are willing to pay a premium subscription for it. It has been running since 2019, which in this cluster is genuine longevity, and its account ladder reaches $300,000. It does not suit traders who scale into winners or hold through volatility, because the trailing drawdown tracks unrealised open equity intra-trade — your highest unbanked profit permanently raises the floor that liquidates you. The biggest caveat is disclosure: Leeloo’s own rules page publishes prices and contract limits but not the profit split, the daily loss limit, the consistency threshold, or the payout schedule. You cannot price the deal from the firm’s own site.
Key terms
- Account programmes: Aspire $25,000 · Launch $50,000 · Climb $100,000 · Cruise $150,000 · Burst $250,000 · Explode $300,000
- Subscription: $250, $280, $320, $405, $725 and $850 per month respectively — published on Leeloo’s own rules page
- Contract limits: 3, 8, 12, 15, 25 and 30 by tier
- Trailing drawdown: $1,500 on Aspire; described by the firm as “a rising trailing max drawdown that tracks your open equity intra-trade, based on the unrealized highest profit point”
- Performance Account fee: $88 per month per Performance Account, or $250 one-time per Performance Account — charged on top of the subscription
- Profit split: reported at 80% to 90%; Leeloo does not publish the schedule on its rules page
- Minimum trading days: 10 in the Foundation practice phase
- Consistency: “Consistency rules apply”; “home-run trading” can trigger payout denial or account closure — no numeric threshold published
Prices, account sizes and contract limits are taken directly from Leeloo’s published rules page. Split and payout figures are from third-party compilations and are flagged as such throughout, because the firm does not state them itself. Verify before paying.
The drawdown is the product
Most of this cluster now competes on profit split and payout speed. Leeloo’s economics are decided somewhere less visible: the drawdown mechanic.
Leeloo describes its limit as a rising trailing maximum drawdown that tracks open equity intra-trade, based on the unrealised highest profit point. Read that carefully, because the phrase “unrealized highest profit point” is doing all the work. On an intra-trade trailing model, the peak your position touches — not the profit you bank, not even the profit at the close of the bar — is what ratchets your liquidation floor upward. A trade that runs $900 in your favour and then retraces has already moved the floor as though you had earned $900, whether or not you saw a cent of it.
On the $25,000 Aspire account the trailing drawdown is $1,500. That is 6% of notional, and it is measured against a high-water mark set by unrealised excursions. For a trader running three contracts on the E-mini S&P, a single volatile session can set a peak that leaves very little room before the account is closed. This is the mechanic that ends most accounts in the futures cluster, and it is the reason the headline account size is close to meaningless as a comparison metric.
Compare the alternatives. Instant Funding halves its drawdown once you win, which is punitive but at least deterministic and disclosed. Funding Pips runs a static drawdown, where the floor never moves. A static floor and an intra-trade trailing floor are different products sold under the same word, and the difference is worth more to a trader’s expectancy than ten percentage points of profit split.
What Leeloo does not publish
Leeloo’s rules page lists six account tiers, six monthly prices, six contract limits and a trailing drawdown figure. It does not list the profit split, the daily loss limit, the numeric consistency threshold, or when payouts are processed.
Those omissions matter more than they would at a younger firm, because a trader signing up to a $850-per-month Explode subscription is committing real recurring money without being able to read the terms that govern whether they get paid. Third-party compilations such as TheTrustedProp report a split in the 80% to 90% band, with some indicating traders keep 100% of a first tranche of profit — figures around $8,000 or $12,500 recur — before the percentage schedule applies. Others report payouts landing on the 15th of the month and clearing in roughly five working days. We could not verify any of that against a Leeloo-published source, and we are not going to present it as though we could.
The consistency language carries the same problem. “Consistency rules apply” and a prohibition on “home-run trading” are qualitative standards enforced by the party that decides whether to pay. That is the identical structural weakness we found in OFP Funding’s undefined Inconsistency Score and in Lark Funding’s margin-utilisation rule. A trader cannot comply with a threshold that has no number.
Cost, properly counted
| Item | Leeloo Trading | Uprofit | Earn2Trade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry monthly cost | $250 (Aspire, $25,000) | ~$39 (50K evaluation) | From ~$150 |
| Top tier | $850/month ($300,000) | ~$196/month ($200,000) | Varies by plan |
| Extra funded-stage fee | $88/month or $250 one-time per Performance Account | $150 activation, one-time | None published |
| Drawdown type | Intra-trade trailing on unrealised equity | EOD trailing | Trailing |
| Consistency rule | Qualitative, no published number | 30%, removed in Funded Live | Published |
| Profit split | Not published by the firm (reported 80–90%) | Up to 80% | Published |
The comparison that matters is annualised. An Aspire subscription at $250 a month is $3,000 a year before a single Performance Account fee, and Leeloo charges those separately at $88 monthly or $250 once. A trader who takes twelve months to reach consistent withdrawals has spent well over $3,000 for access to a simulated account — against roughly $470 a year at Uprofit’s entry tier. Leeloo is not marginally more expensive than the futures cluster’s cheap end; it is several times more expensive, and the longevity it offers in exchange is real but unquantified.
Regulatory posture and what “funded” means here
Leeloo trades as Natural Trading, LLC, based in Roundup, Montana, and has operated since 2019. It holds no securities or derivatives authorisation, is not a broker, and states plainly that it does not accept deposits.
Its own disclosure language is unusually candid and traders should read it before the marketing copy. Leeloo states that “all trades presented for Payouts to customers should be considered hypothetical,” that “unlike an actual performance record, simulated results do not represent actual trading,” and that its “course(s), products and services should be used as learning aids only.” That is a firm describing an educational simulation product, not a capital allocation business — a framing many competitors obscure and Leeloo does not.
The practical consequence is the same across the cluster: there is no ombudsman, no compensation scheme and no regulated counterparty. As The Industry Spread has reported, CFTC and ESMA approaches to prop trading continue to diverge, and ESMA’s CFD conflicts sweep left prop trading untouched. Independent monitoring assigns Leeloo a trust score of 60 out of 100 and lists the profile as unverified, noting traders have reported issues without a firm response — a signal about responsiveness rather than solvency.
FAQ
Is Leeloo Trading regulated?
No. It operates as Natural Trading, LLC in Montana, holds no securities or derivatives licence, and states that it is not a broker and does not accept deposits. Accounts are simulated throughout and the firm describes payouts as based on hypothetical trades. There is no compensation scheme or external dispute-resolution route.
What does the trailing drawdown actually track?
Unrealised open equity, intra-trade. Leeloo’s own wording is that the limit tracks “open equity intra-trade, based on the unrealized highest profit point.” A position’s peak excursion raises your liquidation floor even if you never bank that profit, which makes scaling into winners structurally expensive on this account type.
What is the profit split?
Leeloo does not publish it on its rules page. Third-party compilations report 80% to 90%, with some indicating a first tranche of profit — figures around $8,000 or $12,500 appear — retained in full before the schedule applies. We could not verify any of this against a Leeloo-published source, so treat it as unconfirmed and ask the firm directly.
How much does it really cost per year?
The Aspire tier is $250 per month, or $3,000 annually, before Performance Account fees of $88 monthly or $250 one-time. The top Explode tier is $850 per month, or $10,200 annually. That is several times the entry cost of the cheapest futures competitors, and the subscription runs whether or not you are profitable.
What is the consistency rule?
Undefined numerically. Leeloo states that consistency rules apply and prohibits “home-run trading,” which can result in payout denial or account closure. Without a published threshold a trader cannot verify compliance in advance, which is the same discretionary structure that generates most payout disputes in this cluster.
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.
