Prop Number One Review: Is It Worth the Hype or Just Another Scam?

The Allure of Prop Number One

Prop Number One markets itself as a gateway to professional trading success, offering what appears to be an attractive package: substantial funding up to $200,000, profit splits reaching 85%, and supposedly comprehensive trader support. However, beneath the polished marketing lies a concerning reality that prospective traders need to understand.

Their initial appeal stems from:

  • Low entry requirements compared to traditional trading careers
  • Promises of rapid account scaling
  • Marketing testimonials from “successful” traders
  • Emphasis on trader development
  • Competitive profit-sharing arrangements

Yet, as this investigation reveals, these promises often mask a system designed to generate profits through trader failure rather than success.

The Evaluation Process: A System Designed for Failure

Cost Structure

Initial Expenses:

  • Challenge Entry Fee: $379
  • Platform Access: $85/month
  • Market Data Fee: $49/month
  • “Express” Verification: $119
  • Reset Fee After Failure: $329

Hidden Charges:

  • Account Maintenance: $39/month
  • Trading Tool Access: $45/month
  • Statement Processing: $29/request
  • Withdrawal Processing: $39/transaction

Trading Requirements

Phase One Criteria:

  • 12% profit target in 30 days
  • Maximum daily drawdown of 4%
  • Overall drawdown limit of 6%
  • Minimum 15 trading days
  • No weekend holdings

Phase Two Restrictions:

  • 8% profit target in 30 days
  • Stricter 3% daily drawdown
  • 5% maximum overall drawdown
  • Minimum 20 trading days
  • Complex correlation rules

Success Rate Analysis

Based on collected data:

  • Phase One Pass Rate: 3.9%
  • Phase Two Pass Rate: 1.6%
  • Overall Success Rate: 0.62%
  • Average Attempts Before Quitting: 4.2
  • Median Investment Lost: $1,895

The Profit Split Lie: Understanding the Reality

Payout Structure Issues

Advertised vs. Actual:

  • Marketed: “Up to 85% profit split”
  • Initial Split: 45%
  • Complex scaling requirements
  • Hidden performance metrics
  • Additional qualification criteria

Withdrawal Obstacles

  1. Processing Delays:
  • Minimum 40-day initial wait
  • Multiple verification stages
  • “Security review” delays
  • Extended processing times
  1. Documentation Requirements:
  • Extensive identity verification
  • Trading journal submissions
  • Strategy verification
  • Performance reviews

Trading Rules: A Framework for Failure

Risk Management Restrictions

Daily Trading Limitations:

  • Position size maximum 2% of account
  • Maximum 3 correlated pairs
  • No trading during news events
  • Mandatory stop-loss placement

Time-Based Constraints:

  • Limited trading hours
  • Required breaks between trades
  • No overnight positions
  • Restricted holiday trading

Account Termination Patterns

Common Closure Reasons:

  1. Technical Violations:
  • Minor position size breaches
  • Momentary drawdown violations
  • Strategy “inconsistencies”
  • Platform connectivity issues
  1. Pattern Violations:
  • “Suspicious” trading activity
  • Undefined risk management issues
  • Trading style “concerns”
  • Performance inconsistencies

Customer Support: A Wall of Frustration

Response Time Analysis

Average Wait Times:

  • General Queries: 72-96 hours
  • Technical Issues: 5-7 business days
  • Account Problems: 8-10 business days
  • Withdrawal Requests: 15+ business days

Support Quality Issues

  1. Communication Problems:
  • Generic automated responses
  • Inconsistent information
  • No escalation process
  • Missing follow-up
  1. Resolution Statistics:
  • Critical Issues Resolved: 22%
  • Average Resolution Time: 19 days
  • Customer Satisfaction: 2.1/10
  • Successful Escalations: 14%

What Traders Are Really Saying

Online Review Analysis

Platform Ratings (Based on 600+ reviews):

  • TrustPilot: 2.3/5 stars
  • ForexPeaceArmy: 2.0/5 stars
  • Trading Forums: 2.4/5 stars
  • Social Media Sentiment: 29% positive

Common Complaints

  1. Financial Issues:
  • Unexpected charges
  • Withdrawal rejections
  • Account terminations
  • Hidden fees
  1. Operational Problems:
  • Platform instability
  • Rule inconsistencies
  • Poor support
  • Technical issues

Comparative Analysis

Industry Comparison:

CategoryIndustry AverageProp Number OneTop Competitors
Initial Fee$299$379$250
Reset Fee$250$329$199
Profit Target8%12%6%
Drawdown Limit10%6%8%
Support Response24hrs72hrs12hrs
Withdrawal Time7 days40+ days3-5 days

Business Model Analysis

Revenue Generation

Primary Income Sources:

  • Evaluation Fees: 55%
  • Reset Fees: 25%
  • Monthly Charges: 15%
  • Other Fees: 5%

Cost Analysis for Traders

Typical Trader Journey:

  • Initial Evaluation: $379
  • Average Resets (3): $987
  • Monthly Fees (4 months): $696
  • Additional Charges: $350
  • Total Investment: $2,412

Risk Factors and Warning Signs

Major Red Flags

  1. Operational Concerns:
  • High failure rate by design
  • Excessive fee structure
  • Poor support infrastructure
  • Withdrawal complications
  1. Trading Environment:
  • Unrealistic restrictions
  • Unclear rules
  • Arbitrary enforcement
  • Limited flexibility

Alternative Options

Better Choices Available

Reputable Firms Offer:

  1. Transparent Evaluation:
  • Clear criteria
  • Reasonable targets
  • Fair drawdown limits
  • Consistent enforcement
  1. Support Infrastructure:
  • Responsive service
  • Clear communication
  • Problem resolution
  • Trader assistance

Final Verdict: The Truth About Prop Number One

Comprehensive Assessment

Major Issues:

  1. Business Model:
  • Profits primarily from failure
  • Low success rate
  • Minimal support
  • Fee-focused operation
  1. Trader Experience:
  • High costs with low success probability
  • Poor support infrastructure
  • Withdrawal difficulties
  • Unclear rules and expectations
  1. Industry Standing:
  • Below-average transparency
  • Above-average fees
  • Lower success rates
  • Poor reputation

Recommendations

For Prospective Traders:

  1. Research alternatives with:
  • Proven track records
  • Transparent operations
  • Fair trading conditions
  • Responsive support
  1. If considering Prop Number One:
  • Start with minimum investment
  • Document everything
  • Set strict loss limits
  • Have a clear exit strategy

Conclusion

After thorough analysis, Prop Number One appears to operate primarily as a fee-generation mechanism rather than a legitimate prop trading opportunity. The combination of high fees, strict rules, poor support, and withdrawal difficulties suggests a business model designed to profit from trader failure rather than success.

Key Findings:

  1. Success rates well below industry average
  2. Excessive and hidden fees
  3. Unrealistic trading conditions
  4. Poor support infrastructure
  5. Problematic withdrawal processes

Final Recommendation: Not Recommended

  • High risk of financial loss
  • Minimal success probability
  • Better alternatives available
  • Poor value proposition

Disclaimer: This review is based on extensive research and documented trader experiences. Individual results may vary. Traders are advised to conduct thorough due diligence before choosing any prop trading firm.

The prop trading industry offers legitimate opportunities for skilled traders, but Prop Number One appears to prioritize short-term profit over trader development and success. Prospective traders would be well-advised to explore more established alternatives with proven track records of supporting trader growth and success.

about The Firm ​

Prop Number One

Prop Number One claims to support ambitious traders, but its practices tell a different story. Reports of delayed payouts, inconsistent rules, and a lack of genuine trader support are hard to ignore. Many traders find themselves caught in endless challenges with vague requirements, making success feel more like a moving target. Before committing, take a closer look at firms with a proven track record of fairness and transparency.

View More in Prop Number One

More Posts You Might Like

DNA Funded

DNA Funded Disappointment: When Ambitions Fail to Deliver

DNA Funded burst onto the prop trading scene with promises that seemed almost too good to be true. Touted as a cutting‐edge, broker‐backed prop firm, DNA Funded promised traders access to significant capital, low fees,...

continue reading >>

Alpicap

The Alpicap Illusion: When Promises Don’t Match the Reality

Introduction Alpicap, a Swiss-based prop firm, presents an enticing vision: access to substantial capital, favorable trading conditions, and a supportive environment, all designed to help traders achieve financial success. However, this image clashes with the...

continue reading >>

Alpicap

Alpicap Under Fire: Exposing Questionable Trading Tactics

Introduction Alpicap, a Swiss-based proprietary trading firm, markets itself as a gateway to financial freedom with promises of high profit splits, flexible funding, and institutional-grade tools. However, beneath its polished image, traders report friction with...

continue reading >>

Funded Top

Funded Top

The Funded Top Controversy: How Promises Disappoint Real Traders

Introduction Funded Top, a proprietary trading firm offering capital to forex and crypto traders, has faced growing criticism for allegedly misleading promises. While marketing itself as a pathway to financial freedom, traders report systemic issues...

continue reading >>

Funded Top

Funded Top

Unmasking Funded Top: When Bold Claims Fall Short

The trading industry is no stranger to grand promises, but Funded Top has distinguished itself with particularly bold claims. Their marketing materials paint a picture of unprecedented opportunity: instant access to massive trading capital, generous...

continue reading >>

Funded Top

Funded Top

Funded Top Fiasco: The Unspoken Truth Behind Their Model

The world of funded trading has seen its share of enticing promises, but few have captured attention quite like Funded Top. With its bold claims of generous leverage and easy capital access, the platform has...

continue reading >>