Can An Expert Advisor Pass A Prop Firm Challenge?
Yes. Nothing in the arithmetic prevents it. But performance is the last thing that decides it — four rules decide eligibility first, and a large part of the commercial Expert Advisor market fails at least one of them before a single trade is placed.
This page does not carry a ranked list of Expert Advisors for prop firm challenges. The reason is set out below, and it is not modesty — a list like that cannot be supported on the evidence that exists, and the structure of the rules makes it self-defeating advice even if it could.
Four Things That Decide It First
Two Rules Most EAs Were Not Built For
An EA that clears all four barriers still has to live with two rules written for human traders: minimum trading days and high-impact news restrictions. Neither appears in an EA's settings unless the developer built for it. Both were read from each firm's own rules pages and help centre on 28 September 2026. FTMO's trading objectives, including its minimum days and the 1-Step Consistency rule, were re-read on 16 October 2026.
Minimum trading days
| Firm | Minimum trading days in the challenge |
|---|---|
| FTMO | 4 in each phase of the 2-Step. A trading day is any day a position is opened. The 1-Step has no minimum. For 1-Step orders from 12 October 2026, a Consistency rule replaces the earlier Best Day Rule: your best day's closed profit cannot be more than 50% of your total closed profit. Going over it does not fail the challenge; you keep trading until your best day is back to 50% or less |
| FundedNext | 5 in each phase of Stellar 2-Step and Stellar Lite; 2 on Stellar 1-Step |
| The5ers | 3 profitable days on High Stakes |
| Alpha Capital | 3 in each phase of Pro, Swing and Three; 1 on One |
| E8 Markets | None listed on E8 One; a 40% best-day rule applies to payouts |
| Instant Funding | 3 on the One-Phase and Two-Phase challenges; none on its instant-funded accounts. Opening "negligible or artificial trades solely to meet this requirement is not permitted" |
Two things follow for an EA. A low-frequency EA can hit the profit target before it has traded enough days, and has to keep trading, and keep risking, until it does. And a best-day rule penalises an EA whose profit comes from a few big days, which describes a lot of breakout and news-driven systems. Instant Funding's wording also rules out the obvious workaround of opening token trades to tick off the days.
High-impact news
Most firms let you trade news freely during the challenge and restrict it once the account is funded. The restriction usually covers every execution on the affected instrument, including a stop loss or take profit being filled.
| Firm | News restriction | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| FTMO | No opening or closing, including stop loss and take profit, from 2 minutes before to 2 minutes after selected releases | Funded Standard accounts only. None during the evaluation; none on Swing |
| FundedNext | Profit on trades within 5 minutes either side of a high-impact event counts at 40%; losses count in full | Funded Stellar accounts. Challenge unrestricted |
| The5ers | No order execution from 2 minutes before to 2 minutes after high-impact news; profits made in the window are deducted | High Stakes. Hyper-Growth and Bootcamp ban only bracketing a release with a buy stop and a sell stop |
| Alpha Capital | No opening or closing, including pending orders, stop loss and take profit, 5 minutes either side | Funded Pro, One, Three and Direct accounts. Evaluation unrestricted |
| E8 Markets | Trading prohibited 5 minutes either side of high-impact news | E8 One funded accounts. Signature and Pro unrestricted |
| Instant Funding | Market orders, pending orders, and stop loss and take profit triggers blocked 4 minutes either side; two warnings, then a breach | Most funded accounts, unless the Major News Trading add-on is bought. Challenges unrestricted |
Each firm publishes its own list of which releases and instruments count. Read it for the account you are buying.
This is the rule most EAs break without noticing. An EA does not read an economic calendar unless it was built to. At FTMO and Alpha Capital its own stop loss or take profit filling inside the window counts as a violation, and at Instant Funding those orders are blocked from triggering at all. Passing the challenge proves nothing here, because most firms only apply the restriction after it. Before you pay, confirm the EA has a news filter you can set to the firm's window and calendar, or plan to switch it off around releases yourself.
What Happened When We Actually Tested Them
We test specific configurations against specific firms' published rules and publish what happened. A conformance test is not a review and produces no verdict on the Expert Advisor. It answers one question: would this configuration, exactly as the developer supplies it, have stayed inside this firm's limits and reached its target?
We only run these tests on an Expert Advisor whose developer advertises it for prop firm trading or supplies prop firm settings. Where the developer supplies a prop firm settings file, each test uses it, unmodified apart from symbol names, which we change to the firm's own. Where none does, we use the developer's default settings, with any prop firm feature built into the EA switched on at the developer's own value, because the developer presents it for prop firm trading. We never choose a value ourselves, and we publish the run as installed alongside, as the baseline. Every test runs in the MT5 Strategy Tester logged into an FTMO Free Trial, so the prices, spreads and commission are FTMO's own. A challenge phase ends when the profit target is reached with all trades closed, so we judge the loss limits from the start of the test, or of the out-of-sample part, up to the end of that day. Anything later is reported for information only. Where the developer re-optimised inside the test window, the trades from that date are judged as a rebased comparison of the same run, and only when trade sizes did not grow with the balance. The built-in feature rule was added on 31 October 2026; the earlier tests used the previous rule and have not been re-run. The full method is on our methodology page.
Correction, 2 October 2026. The Perceptrader AI and Forex Flex EA results first published here on 16 and 17 September were run on IC Markets' price data, without commission. We re-ran both on FTMO's own data on 2 October, and the figures below replace them. The earlier results (Perceptrader AI −4.16% with a breach of the 1-Step loss limit; Forex Flex EA +1.60% from 12 trades) no longer stand. Both configurations still fail.
Forex GOLD Investor — developer's default settings
+£2,369.07, maximum equity drawdown 4.61%, profit factor 1.28 — but −£42.23 on the 403 trades after its latest re-optimisation.
No prop firm settings file exists for it; the developer recommends the defaults. It reached FTMO's 10% target on 7 May 2025 and broke no loss limit. But version 2.4's defaults were re-optimised on 16 June 2026, so everything before that date is data the settings could have been tuned to. On the 403 trades after it, the account lost money, with a profit factor of 0.97. Under our method that is a fail, by a thin margin, and we report it as such. The detail is in our Forex GOLD Investor review.
Perceptrader AI — developer's FTMO set file
+£700.44 (+7.0%), maximum equity drawdown 4.22%, profit factor 1.27.
It broke none of FTMO's maximum loss limits, but in 21 months it never reached the 10% profit target, so it fails the challenge. Its worst day, −£253.85 on closed trades on 20 February 2026, was 2.54% of the starting balance: well inside the 2-Step's 5% daily limit, but within about £46 of the 1-Step's 3% limit before any open losses are counted, so whether it held that limit is not established. The set file guards the daily limit at 4.5% but leaves the EA's own overall drawdown protection switched off.
Forex Flex EA — developer's FTMO set file
−£317.76 (−3.18%), two breaches of the 1-Step daily loss limit — then it stopped trading on 11 February 2025 and never resumed.
The supplied settings file carries a 30-day maximum trading period that FTMO no longer imposes, so the EA switched itself off against a deadline that no longer exists. Before it did, finding itself behind target, it raised its position size from 0.03 lots to 0.20, with its grid adding 0.34 and 0.58 — behaviour documented in the vendor's own user guide. Those positions broke the 1-Step challenge's 3% daily limit on 3 and 5 February 2025, losing £314.83 and £364.67 on closed trades alone. It stayed inside both maximum loss limits. The detail is in our Forex Flex EA review.
In a separate control run on IC Markets data on 17 September, with the prop firm module off and at a lower risk setting, the same strategy held a losing basket for 561 days to a 27% equity drawdown.
Forex Diamond EA — developer's default settings
+£319.59 (+3.20%), profit factor 1.02, maximum equity drawdown 11.28% — and a breach of the 1-Step maximum loss limit.
The developer says there are no settings files and that the defaults suit every supported pair, so we tested the defaults on GBPUSD. In 21 months it never reached the 10% target; its highest balance was 4.86% up. The 1-Step maximum loss trails the highest end-of-day balance by £1,000: on 26 January 2026, with no trades open, the balance was £9,469.79, below the £9,486.34 limit. It stayed inside the 2-Step static limit, with a lowest equity of £9,307.17.
Costs took most of a thin edge: FTMO's tester charged £757.18 commission, and commission and swap together took £1,241.98 of £1,561.57 gross profit. Its settings were last re-optimised on 18 June 2025; on the 1,979 trades after that date it made £234.51, still well short of the target. Its drawdown protection and trade randomisation features are off by default and were off in our test. The detail is in our Forex Diamond EA review.
Gold Trade Pro — developer's current prop firm set file
Passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in our simulation, narrowly — and broke the 1-Step's 3% daily loss limit.
The file is "Goldtrade_V4.0_prop firm.set", from the "Prop Firm Set File" on the MQL5 product page, run unmodified. It reached the 10% target, with all positions closed, on 29 September 2025, after 49 trading days and without breaking a 2-Step limit. Its closest call was 27 March 2025, when equity fell £345.82 below the midnight balance: £154.18 inside the 2-Step's £500 daily limit, and £45.82 over the 1-Step's £300. Its lowest equity was £9,716.18. Over the whole run it made +£2,720.24 (+27.2%), with a profit factor of 1.79.
FTMO's loss limits count open trades, so we rebuilt the account's equity minute by minute from FTMO's one-minute gold prices, valuing open trades at the worst price in each minute. The settings file and the developer's last recorded strategy change predate the test window, and the update log records no re-optimisation since, so unlike Forex GOLD Investor, we found no settings re-optimisation inside the window. The code was not frozen, though: later versions changed trade management, including version 6.74 on 2 October 2026, and we tested the current version 7.0. This is a retrospective test, not a forward one. We did not run the 5% verification phase on a fresh account. The detail is in our Gold Trade Pro review.
Gold Trade Pro — developer's older prop firm set file
Passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase and the 1-Step in our simulation — the 1-Step by £28.96.
The developer posted "Goldtrade_Prop.set" on MQL5 on 27 October 2023 as a set file for prop firms, and has replaced it twice since. The product page still links it, without a label, so we tested it too. It reached the target on 12 January 2026, after 66 trading days. Its worst day, also 27 March 2025, was £271.04: £28.96 inside the 1-Step's daily limit, a near miss, and £228.96 inside the 2-Step's. Its lowest equity was £9,794.84, and before the target it never came closer than £728.96 to the 1-Step's trailing limit. At completion its best day was 22.5% of its total closed profit, inside the 1-Step's Consistency rule. Over the whole run it made +£2,155.98 (+21.6%), with a profit factor of 1.71. We did not estimate its 5% verification phase, and the same code caveat applies as above.
Both Gold Trade Pro margins, £154.18 and £28.96, are small against what a simulation like this can resolve. Valuing open trades at each minute's worst price tends to overstate losses, while slippage, which we did not model, could push the other way.
Gold Reaper — developer's current prop firm set file
Stayed inside FTMO's 2-Step Challenge-phase limits in our simulation — and went £8.94 beyond the 1-Step's daily limit, too small a margin to call.
The file is "Gold_reaper_propfirm.set", from the settings pack the developer posted on MQL5 on 8 October 2026, run unmodified. It reached the 10% target, with all positions closed, on 15 May 2025, after 36 trading days and without breaking a 2-Step limit. Its worst day was 20 January 2025: five buys held over a weekend left equity an estimated £308.94 below the midnight balance, £191.06 inside the 2-Step's £500 daily limit and £8.94 beyond the 1-Step's £300. Its lowest equity was £9,609.24. Over the whole run it made +£5,800.81 (+58.0%), with a profit factor of 2.25.
The file randomises entries, stops and targets, and we ran it once, so this is one sample; we have not established our estimate's accuracy at a margin of £8.94. We estimated equity the same way as above, now spreading overnight swap across the nights a trade is held; that change leaves the Gold Trade Pro figures unchanged. The settings file and the developer's last change to how the strategies set stops and trade size (December 2024) predate the test window, and the update log records no re-optimisation. We tested the current version 5.5, so this is a retrospective test, not a forward one. The detail is in our Gold Reaper review.
Gold Reaper — developer's older prop firm set file
Stayed inside FTMO's 2-Step Challenge-phase and 1-Step limits in our simulation.
The developer posted "propfirm__1.set" on MQL5 on 29 January 2024 as a set file for prop firms, and the product page still links it. It is the current file without randomisation. It reached the target on 15 May 2025, after 36 trading days. Its worst day, 27 March 2025, was £196.86: £103.14 inside the 1-Step's daily limit and £303.14 inside the 2-Step's. Its lowest equity was £9,714.17, and before the target it never came closer than £637.68 to the 1-Step's trailing limit. At completion its best day was 25.1% of its total closed profit, inside the 1-Step's Consistency rule. Over the whole run it made +£4,679.39 (+46.8%), with a profit factor of 2.28.
The two Gold Reaper files differ in one setting, yet the runs took different trades (1,031 against 844 over the same dates to 21 October 2026), and on 20 January 2025 the older file lost £196.42 where the current file lost £308.94. Read them as two samples, not a forecast.
Range Breakout EA — built-in daily drawdown protector switched on (our test)
Passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in our simulation — worst day £457.75, leaving £42.25 of the £500 daily limit — and broke the 1-Step's 3% daily limit.
We found no prop firm settings file; the developer's notes say none is needed. The product page lists a "Daily drawdown protector (prop firm friendly, e.g. FTMO, The5ers, FundedNext)", which ships switched off at a level of 4.0; we switched it on at that value. The only other change was the two index symbol names, to FTMO's. Its closed balance crossed the 10% target on 21 January 2025, after 14 days of trading, and the phase was complete when its last open trade closed that evening. Up to then, its worst day was 10 January 2025: equity fell an estimated £457.75 below the balance at midnight Central European time, inside the 2-Step's £500 daily limit and beyond the 1-Step's £300. Its lowest equity was £9,488.72, £488.72 above the £9,000 overall limit. Over the whole run it made +£7,769.04 (+77.7%), with a profit factor of 1.13, after commission and swap. This is the Challenge phase only; we did not run the 5% Verification phase.
Version 5.0 re-optimised the inputs on 8 July 2026, inside the window, so earlier trades may reflect that tuning. We checked the trades from that day separately. This is the same run, not a new £10,000 test: the average losing trade did not grow with the balance, so the 342 trades from 8 July (balance then £15,771.98) are compared with a £10,000 challenge's £1,000 target and £500 daily limit. They made +£1,997.06 (profit factor 1.19), made a further £1,000 by 31 July 2026, and, up to then, stayed inside the 2-Step's limits; on 20 July equity fell an estimated £364.11 in the day, beyond the 1-Step's £300. The EA randomises its trades, so this is one sample. The detail is in our Range Breakout EA review.
Range Breakout EA — as installed (protector off)
Passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in our simulation — worst day £453.45, leaving £46.55 of the £500 daily limit — and broke the 1-Step's 3% daily limit.
It also reached the target on 21 January 2025. Up to then its worst day was 10 January 2025 (−£453.45). Over the whole run it made +£8,833.51, with a profit factor of 1.15. On the same rebased basis, the 343 trades from 8 July 2026 made +£1,625.10 (profit factor 1.15). They reached a further £1,000 by 31 July 2026 and, up to then, gave the same result (worst day 20 July, −£361.48). We publish it beside the protector run as the baseline. After the target, and not part of the result, the comparison cuts both ways: on 24 January 2025 its equity fell an estimated £646.22, beyond the 2-Step's £500 daily limit (its closed loss that day did not), while the protector run stayed inside; but the protector run crossed the 1-Step's trailing limit earlier (11 February against 17 March 2025). The EA randomises its trades, so the two runs are not a controlled on/off comparison.
Ten tests is ten tests. Forex Flex EA's 29 trades are far below the 100 closed trades we require before drawing any conclusion about a strategy, and we draw none from them. What these establish is how ten configurations, from seven Expert Advisors, behaved against one firm's published rules, on that firm's own prices — a narrow claim, and the only one the evidence supports. Six configurations passed the 2-Step Challenge phase: both settings files for Gold Trade Pro and The Gold Reaper, from Profalgo Limited, and Range Breakout EA with its built-in protector on and off. Only the older Profalgo file of each also passed the 1-Step. Several margins are narrow: £42.25 and £46.55 on Range Breakout EA's 2-Step daily limit, £154.18 on the current Gold Trade Pro file's 2-Step daily limit, and £28.96 on the older Gold Trade Pro file's 1-Step daily limit. The current Gold Reaper file went £8.94 beyond the 1-Step's daily limit; we do not count it as a 1-Step pass, though a margin that small is too close to call. These tests are not a review verdict, and they do not predict how the next challenge would go.
Why There Is No "Best EA" List Here
Three reasons, in order of how much they matter.
We have not found evidence that would support a defensible ranking. One would need each candidate run against each firm's specific limit type, on real-tick data, at the firm's own leverage cap, over a window long enough to produce a hundred closed trades. We have run ten tests so far, on seven Expert Advisors; one, Forex Flex EA, stopped after 29 trades. Six passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in our simulation: four settings files for two EAs from the same developer, and Range Breakout EA with its built-in protector on and off. Only two of the six also stayed inside the 1-Step's limits. That is evidence about six configurations of three EAs, not a ranking. We have not seen a "top ten EAs for prop firms" list that shows this work. The ones we have seen are assembled from vendor marketing and affiliate availability, which is why they tend to contain the same products.
The recommendation would destroy itself. This is the part that makes such lists incoherent rather than merely unsupported. The allocation and group-trading rules mean an EA becomes more dangerous the more people run it. Publishing "here are the best EAs for prop firm challenges" to an audience is, structurally, advice to create the condition the rules penalise. The better the advice worked, the worse the outcome for everyone who took it.
Three of six firms make the question moot. At The5ers, Alpha Capital and Instant Funding, no commercially-bought EA is permitted regardless of how good it is. A ranking implies a choice those firms do not offer.
What we publish instead. Conformance tests on named configurations, with every setting stated and the raw result published whether it flatters the product or not. When a configuration passes, it says so here with the figures attached, as the Gold Trade Pro, Gold Reaper and Range Breakout EA results above do.
Our reviews of individual Expert Advisors, and the verdicts attached to them, are on the reviews page. Those assess the standard configuration on its own evidence, which is a different question from prop firm conformance.
What Would Have To Be True Of Your EA
These are properties, not products. Check them against whatever you already own before paying a challenge fee.
- ✅ It is permitted at the firm you have chosen. Read that firm's own wording rather than a comparison table. Three of the six we checked do not permit bought EAs at all, and one bans five by name.
- ✅ It runs on a platform that firm offers. MT4 narrows you to two firms immediately.
- ✅ Its maximum equity drawdown sits comfortably inside the firm's overall limit — not its balance drawdown, which ignores open positions. If the two figures are far apart, the gap is floating exposure and the daily limit will find it.
- ✅ Its worst single day, measured on equity, sits inside the daily limit. Most backtest exports cannot produce this. If yours cannot, you have not answered the question — say so rather than assuming you passed.
- ✅ It places stop losses with the broker if you are considering The5ers, which does not allow a hidden, "stealth mode" stop loss: its FAQ says the stop loss "has to be visible in the trading platform". Several commercial EAs hold exits internally.
- ✅ It does not grid or martingale — or the firm permits that explicitly. Two firms prohibit grid by name, and The5ers prohibits "bulk trading", which it defines as "when multiple trades are open simultaneously" — how a grid holds its positions. Three permit martingale explicitly; the rest are silent, and silence is not permission.
- ✅ It trades on enough separate days to meet the firm's minimum, without token trades — and its profit is not concentrated in one or two days if the firm has a best-day rule.
- ✅ It can stand aside around high-impact news on a funded account, including not letting its own stop loss or take profit fire inside the restricted window.
- ✅ Few enough other people run it that you will not trip the allocation or group-trading rules. You cannot verify this, which is itself the finding — a self-coded EA is the only version of this you control.
Once you have the drawdown figures, test them rather than eyeballing them. A single drawdown percentage gives the wrong answer against a trailing limit — the same equity path can stay inside a static limit and break a trailing one. Our Prop Firm Drawdown Checker takes the starting balance, lowest equity, highest end-of-day balance and worst single day, tests them against a firm's limits, and shows the arithmetic.
Test it at the firm's leverage, not your broker's. FTMO caps leverage at 1:100 on standard accounts. Running a backtest at 1:500 removes the margin constraint the firm imposes and invalidates the comparison entirely. Every test above was run at 1:100 for exactly this reason.
The full method, including data quality requirements and what we publish with every result, is in our testing methodology. It is free and needs no email address.
EAs And Prop Firms, Answered
Can an Expert Advisor pass a prop firm challenge?
Yes, in principle. Nothing in the rules prevents an automated strategy from reaching a profit target inside the loss limits. In practice the binding constraints are rules rather than performance: whether the firm permits a bought EA at all, whether it offers your platform, how it measures drawdown, and how many other traders run the same product.
What is the best EA for FTMO?
We do not publish one, and we explain why on this page. A defensible answer would require testing each candidate against FTMO's specific limits on real-tick data at 1:100 leverage over a hundred closed trades. We have tested ten configurations on FTMO's own data. Six passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in our simulation: two settings files each for Gold Trade Pro and The Gold Reaper, both from the same developer, and Range Breakout EA with its built-in daily drawdown protector on and off. Only the older Profalgo file of each also stayed inside the 1-Step's limits. Several margins are narrow, and six passes for three EAs do not make a best EA. A list naming ten products is not evidence of that work: look for published tests of named configurations against the firm's own rules.
Do prop firms allow Expert Advisors?
Of the six we checked as at 17 September 2026, FTMO and E8 Markets permit third-party EAs with conditions, FundedNext permits them as a paid add-on with a distinct strategy requirement, and The5ers, Alpha Capital and Instant Funding do not permit commercially-bought EAs at all.
Why did my EA fail the challenge?
The most common mechanism is the daily loss limit measured on equity. All six firms count floating profit and loss on open positions, so a strategy holding losing positions is consuming its daily allowance even while its balance looks unchanged. The second most common is a drawdown figure quoted on balance rather than equity, which understates what the firm actually measures.
Do prop firms have minimum trading days?
Most do during the challenge. Of the six we checked, FTMO requires 4 trading days in each phase of its 2-Step, FundedNext 5 per phase on Stellar 2-Step and Lite, The5ers 3 profitable days on High Stakes, Alpha Capital 3 per phase on most plans, and Instant Funding 3 on its challenges. E8 One lists none. Instant Funding states that opening negligible or artificial trades just to meet the minimum is not permitted.
Can an EA trade during high-impact news at a prop firm?
Usually during the challenge, and usually not freely once funded. FTMO, FundedNext, Alpha Capital, E8 Markets and Instant Funding all restrict or penalise trading around high-impact news on some or all funded accounts, with windows of 2 to 5 minutes either side, and The5ers restricts order execution on High Stakes. At FTMO and Alpha Capital a stop loss or take profit filling inside the window counts as a violation, so an EA needs a news filter set to the firm's own window.
Can I use a martingale EA on a prop firm account?
FundedNext, E8 Markets and Instant Funding permit martingale explicitly, with conditions at Instant Funding on funded accounts. FundedNext and Instant Funding prohibit grid trading by name, and The5ers prohibits "bulk trading", multiple trades open at the same time. Many commercial EAs are both grid and martingale at once. FTMO and Alpha Capital do not address either, which is not the same as permitting them.
Should I buy an EA advertised as "prop firm ready"?
Treat the phrase as marketing rather than a specification. One EA sold under that framing is banned by name at FundedNext, and its shipped documentation recommends a prop firm that ceased operations in May 2024. Check the claim against the firm's own rules and the EA's own settings file before paying for either.
Our position. We have affiliate relationships with five of the six prop firms named on this page — FTMO, FundedNext, The5ers, E8 Markets and Instant Funding — approved between 19 and 21 September 2026, after this page was first published on 17 September. There are no affiliate links on this page, and none of the firms supplied, reviewed or approved anything here. Alpha Capital Group does not advertise an affiliate programme, and we have no relationship with it. We have no relationship with the developer of Forex Flex EA, with FXAutomater, the developer of Forex GOLD Investor and Forex Diamond EA, or with Eriksson Systems, the developer of Range Breakout EA.
About Profalgo. We joined the affiliate programme of Profalgo Limited, the developer of Gold Trade Pro and The Gold Reaper, on 26 October 2026. That was after the results for both of its EAs on this page (two settings files each) were published: Gold Trade Pro's on 17 October 2026 and The Gold Reaper's on 24 October 2026. The results are unchanged. There is no affiliate link on this page. Our Gold Trade Pro review carries one affiliate link, to the developer's four-EA Gold Bundle. If you buy through that link, we earn a commission, and the programme's 90-day, last-click cookie means a later purchase from the developer's site may also earn us one. The bundle includes Gold Trade Pro, which we rate Recommended, and The Gold Reaper, which we rate Inconclusive; those are the two Profalgo Expert Advisors tested on this page. It also includes Goldbot One and The Gold Phantom, which were not tested here and which we have not reviewed.
About ValeryTrading. We have an affiliate relationship with ValeryTrading, the developer of Perceptrader AI, approved on 17 August 2026. Our review of that product was first published on 13 August 2026, before that relationship existed, and on 27 September 2026 we changed its verdict to Not Recommended. There is no affiliate link to it on this page. The FTMO settings file tested above was supplied by ValeryTrading, after the relationship began. We publish that here so you can weigh the result knowing where the material came from — it failed the test either way.
Every rule was read from the firm's own website, help centre or terms, and is quoted rather than paraphrased wherever the wording matters. Prop firm rules change without notice. We re-verify this page quarterly and date every change.
Trading carries risk. Nothing on this page is financial advice or a recommendation to buy any product or use any firm.
© 2026 The Robotic Trader. All rights reserved.