State of Prop Trading: Data Reveals a $19.4 Billion Industry Split by Two Competing Models — Week of June 14, 2026

This week in numbers

- Estimated Industry Revenue (2026): $19.4 billion - Active Funded Traders (2026): 720,000 - Year-over-Year Revenue Growth (2025-2026): 33.8% - Year-over-Year Trader Growth (2025-2026): 27.4% - Median Profit Split (Top 40 Firms): 50% - Average Profit Split (Top 40 Firms): 64.4% - Firms in Sample Allowing News Trading: 40 out of 40

Industry growth

The proprietary trading sector continues its formidable expansion in 2026, with estimated industry revenue now standing at $19.4 billion and the number of active funded traders reaching 720,000. These figures represent a significant surge from the previous year, with revenue climbing 33.8% from $14.5 billion and the trader count increasing 27.4% from 565,000 in 2025.

The long-term trend is even more pronounced. Since 2020, when the industry accounted for an estimated $1.2 billion in revenue and 32,000 traders, the number of active traders has multiplied by a factor of 22.5. Over the same period, revenue has grown by more than 16-fold. The data indicates that revenue growth is currently outpacing the growth in funded traders, a dynamic that suggests an increase in per-trader revenue generated through evaluation fees and other services. This trend aligns with the ongoing debate around the sustainability and incentive structures of the dominant business models, a topic further explored in our analysis, /article/prop-firm-business-model-sustainability-challenge.

Where the firms cluster

A deeper look into the composition of the industry, based on a sample of 40 of the most popular firms listed in our /directory, reveals a landscape fundamentally split between two models. While many retail traders are familiar with high profit splits, the median profit split across our entire sample is just 50%. This figure is pulled down by the large number of traditional "Firm Capital Model" firms in our sample, such as **DRW**, **Jane Street**, and **Optiver**, which constitute the bedrock of the institutional side of the industry.

These firms operate on a model of direct employment, offering salaries and annual bonuses that typically align with a 50/50 profit-sharing structure. There are no upfront evaluation fees; instead, traders undergo a rigorous, multi-stage interview process to gain access to firm capital. This model represents one major cluster.

The other cluster consists of the now-ubiquitous "Evaluation-Based Funding" firms like **FTMO** and **Topstep**. This model, which has fueled much of the industry's recent growth, offers traders the chance to secure a funded account by passing a trading challenge. These firms are characterized by very high profit splits, often between 80% and 100%, but require traders to pay one-time or recurring evaluation fees. The contrast in payout structures is stark, as illustrated below.

Profit Split Comparison by Model | Firm | Model | Profit Split | | --- | --- | --- | | Jump Trading | Firm Capital Model | 50% | | Citadel Securities | Firm Capital Model | 50% | | Topstep | Evaluation-Based Funding | 90% | | FundedNext | Evaluation-Based Funding | 95% | | Apex Trader Funding | Evaluation-Based Funding | 100% |

In terms of asset classes, the market offers broad diversity. Among our sample of 40 firms, 33 support trading in stocks, making it the most commonly available asset class. This is followed by futures, supported by 22 firms, and options, supported by 21 firms. This data counters the perception that prop trading is solely the domain of FX and futures. Traders interested in specific asset classes can find detailed guides on our site, such as /article/asset-class-primer-futures, or use our /compare tools to filter firms by instrument.

Outliers worth a second look

Within these clusters, several firms distinguish themselves with offerings that deviate significantly from the norm. On profit splits, a handful of firms now offer a 100% share to the trader, including **Apex Trader Funding**, **FundingPips**, and **Funded Trading Plus**. This model relies entirely on evaluation fee revenue, and its long-term viability remains a subject of intense industry debate.

Maximum allocation size is another area with significant outliers. While many online firms offer capital up to the $150,000–$300,000 range, **The 5%ers** provides a path to an industry-leading $4,000,000 account. This stands in sharp contrast to a firm like **My Funded Futures**, which tops out at $150,000. For traders weighing the importance of scaling, this can be a critical differentiator, and they can compare these firms head-to-head on our page at /vs/my-funded-futures-vs-the-5ers.

Perhaps the most surprising data point from our analysis is the uniform policy on news trading. Contrary to the widely held belief that firms heavily restrict trading during major economic releases, all 40 firms in our sample, from institutional players like **Hudson River Trading** to retail-focused firms like **FTMO**, permit news trading. This suggests the industry has moved toward managing volatility risk through mechanisms like daily and total drawdown limits rather than blanket time-based rules. This finding warrants a re-evaluation of prior analyses that focused heavily on news restriction policies.

Finally, the instant funding model remains a niche but important option. Only 3 of the 40 firms in our sample—**E8 Markets**, **Funded Trading Plus**, and **The 5%ers**—offer a path to a funded account that bypasses the standard evaluation phase, albeit at a higher upfront cost. This model caters to experienced traders confident in their ability to manage risk from day one. Our /article/prop-firm-funding-models-evaluation-vs-instant-funding provides a complete breakdown of this alternative path.

What this means for traders

The data underscores that "proprietary trading" is not a monolithic industry. The primary decision for an aspiring trader is which of the two dominant models to pursue. The traditional path offers the stability of a salary and direct mentorship but involves a highly selective, competitive hiring process with no guarantee of entry. The online evaluation model provides a clear, rules-based path to capital for anyone who can pass the challenge, but it comes with upfront costs and a different risk-reward proposition.

The proliferation of high profit splits (90% or more) is directly tied to the evaluation fee structure. Traders should not view these splits in a vacuum; they are a feature of a business model that profits from challenge attempts. For a technical breakdown of the different financial models, our /data page offers further resources.

The universal allowance for news trading in our sample is a critical insight. It implies that a trader's primary focus should be on adhering to the firm's loss limits and drawdown rules, not on navigating a complex calendar of restricted trading times. This simplifies the strategic landscape for many.

The market continues to innovate, with firms competing on vectors beyond just profit split. The emergence of firms like **Hola Prime**, which promises same-day payouts, demonstrates a focus on trader-friendly logistics. A trader prioritizing speed of withdrawal might compare them against an established player like FTMO at /vs/ftmo-vs-hola-prime to weigh the trade-offs between a new offering and a longer track record.

Key takeaways

- The proprietary trading industry's growth remains robust, with revenue projected at $19.4 billion for 2026, supported by 720,000 funded traders.

- The industry is statistically anchored by the traditional "Firm Capital Model," where a 50% profit split (via bonus structure) is the norm, explaining the 50% median split across our 40-firm sample.

- The "Evaluation-Based" model offers a low barrier to entry and headline-grabbing profit splits of up to 100%, but its economics are built on evaluation fees, creating a distinct set of incentives for both firm and trader.

- Data indicates that news trading restrictions are no longer a key differentiator; 100% of firms in our extensive sample permit it, relying instead on risk parameters like drawdown rules to manage volatility.

- Significant outliers in maximum allocation (**The 5%ers**) and funding models (**E8 Markets**) show a dynamic market where traders have expanding options. We encourage traders to use tools like the PT.com /match service to find a firm that aligns with their specific goals.

- For those new to the space or looking to refine their approach, our /education section offers foundational resources on risk management, position sizing, and the psychology of trading with firm capital.