Comparison

Topstep vs MyFundedFutures

Both are futures-native prop firms with solid reputations. The difference that matters most for Pine Script traders: Topstep uses an EOD trailing drawdown that moves every session, while MyFundedFutures uses a static drawdown that never changes. Here's how that one difference cascades through every aspect of running an automated strategy.

Rule-by-rule comparison — 50k accounts

The drawdown difference — and why it matters for algos

Topstep's EOD trailing drawdown explained

Topstep's drawdown trails your end-of-day equity. Specifically: the max drawdown floor is calculated based on the highest balance recorded at the end of any trading session. If you start the day at $50,000 and close it at $51,500, your new drawdown floor moves up to $49,500 (the $2,000 max trailing). If you then close the next day down $300 at $51,200, the floor stays at $49,500 — it only moves up, never down.

For a Pine Script, this creates a compounding problem: as the strategy wins over time, the floor rises. A strategy that starts with $2,000 of cushion above the floor eventually has only $500 of cushion — not because it lost anything, but because the trailing floor has kept pace with the growing balance. The strategy must continuously recalculate available drawdown room and adjust sizing accordingly. This is non-trivial to implement cleanly in Pine Script.

MFF's static drawdown explained

MyFundedFutures uses a static drawdown: the max loss floor is fixed from the start and never moves. On a 50k account, the floor is set at $47,500 (the $2,500 max loss). Whether the account grows to $55,000 or stays flat, the floor remains at $47,500. The Pine Script only needs to know one number, and that number doesn't change for the life of the evaluation.

This is fundamentally simpler for algorithm design. You define the risk floor once as a constant, and the strategy respects it without ever needing to recalculate. Position sizing can be consistent across sessions because the drawdown cushion stays constant regardless of cumulative P&L.

What this means in practice

Consider a strategy averaging $300 in profit per winning session and $200 in losses per losing session. After 10 winning sessions on Topstep, the trailing floor has risen $3,000. The strategy now has $1,000 less cushion than it started with — a 50% reduction in available drawdown room. On MFF, those same 10 sessions leave the static floor unchanged. The strategy still has its full $2,500 of room.

This means Topstep requires either:

• Progressive de-sizing as the account grows (reducing risk per trade as the floor approaches)
• Or a hard maximum account balance at which the strategy stops trading to protect the drawdown floor

MFF requires neither. The floor is constant, so sizing can be constant.

Daily loss limits: Topstep is tighter

Topstep enforces a $1,000 daily loss limit on the 50k account. MFF enforces a $1,500 daily loss limit. Both require a daily circuit breaker in the automation stack, but Topstep's tighter cap means less room per session. At $150/trade risk: Topstep allows approximately 6 losses before the session floor triggers, MFF allows approximately 10.

If your strategy has strings of losses on high-noise sessions — which is common for mean-reversion or counter-trend algos — Topstep's lower daily cap will result in more forced session stops. That's not necessarily bad (it protects the account), but it means the strategy will have fewer entries over the same evaluation period.

Consistency rule: Topstep has no cap on big days, MFF does

Topstep has no consistency rule — a single massive winning session doesn't disqualify you from the evaluation. MFF enforces a 30% consistency rule: no single day can account for more than 30% of your total profit. If a strategy books a huge win on a volatile session and that win represents 35% of total evaluation profit, MFF flags it as inconsistent.

For strategies that might generate outsized single-session returns (breakout strategies, news-driven entries, gap trades), Topstep's lack of a consistency rule is a meaningful advantage. For strategies that produce steady, modest daily returns, MFF's 30% rule is unlikely to ever trigger.

Evaluation model: monthly subscription vs. one-time fee

Topstep charges a monthly subscription: $49/month for the 50k Combine, scaling up to $165/month for larger accounts. This cost continues every month until you pass or cancel. For traders who pass quickly — within 30 days — the cost is $49. For traders who take 90 days, the cost is $147.

MFF charges a one-time fee per evaluation attempt. A typical 50k two-phase evaluation runs $60–$180 depending on the program type. Regardless of how long it takes to pass, the fee doesn't compound. If you need two months to hit the profit target, you pay the same amount as if you passed in two weeks.

For a Pine Script strategy that generates slow, consistent gains rather than fast spikes to the target, MFF's one-time fee model is the more predictable and often cheaper option.

Which firm should you choose?

Running the same Pine Script on both firms

The core indicator logic — entry signals, exit logic, take profit and stop loss levels — is identical between firms. What changes are the risk management parameters:

• Topstep version: Set daily loss limit at $950 (buffer below the $1,000 floor). Implement a trailing drawdown tracker that recalculates the loss floor after each session's close and adjusts position sizing down as cushion decreases. No consistency rule tracking needed.
• MFF version: Set daily loss limit at $1,450 (buffer below the $1,500 floor). Set the static loss floor as a fixed constant. Add a consistency rule check: if today's unrealized P&L exceeds 28% of total evaluation profit, reduce position size for the remainder of the session.

Our Pine Script strategies include configurable parameters for both firms. The Topstep strategy page and MyFundedFutures strategy page walk through the specific parameter settings for each firm's rule structure.

Where Apex fits in

If you're deciding between these two firms primarily because of automation, it's worth noting that Apex Trader Funding has no daily loss limit during the evaluation — the most automation-friendly rule in the industry. See the Apex vs MFF comparison or the Apex vs Topstep comparison to see how Apex stacks up against each.

FAQ

Is Topstep or MyFundedFutures better for automated trading?

For automated Pine Script strategies, MyFundedFutures' static drawdown is easier to manage algorithmically than Topstep's EOD trailing drawdown, which moves daily based on your equity high. Topstep requires strategies that can track and respect a moving drawdown floor.

Which prop firm has faster payouts — Topstep or MFF?

Both offer relatively fast payouts (5-business-day range). Topstep requires 5 trading days on the funded account before the first withdrawal. MFF's payout timeline is similar. Both accept ACH or wire.

Can I use the same Pine Script on Topstep and MFF?

The same indicator logic works on both, but you will need to adjust the daily loss limit dollar amounts (they differ between firms) and ensure the drawdown tracking matches each firm's specific structure — static for MFF, EOD trailing for Topstep.