Evaluation Style Lock
Your evaluation isn't just a test. At many firms, it's a binding contract about how you'll trade forever.
What it is
Some prop firms include a clause, usually buried in the Terms & Conditions and rarely mentioned in the FAQ, that requires you to trade the same strategy in the funded phase as you used during the evaluation. Pass with a scalping approach, you're expected to scalp on the funded account. Pass swinging, you swing on the funded account. Switch, and it's a breach.
Firms don't always call it by the same name. Look for language like "strategy utilization", "strategy consistency", or variations of "utilizing one strategy to pass an assessment and then utilizing a different strategy in a funded account." That last one is a direct ToS quote, and the firm gets to decide unilaterally what counts as "different."
Why it exists
The legitimate version of this concern is real: some traders do game evaluations. They take oversized risk to hit the profit target fast, knowing the fee is the only downside if they blow up, then plan to trade conservatively once funded. A firm that can't detect this loses money on traders who pass on luck and then struggle on real capital.
That's a genuine problem. The rule is an attempt to solve it.
The two sides
The firm's argument
The evaluation is a demonstration of your edge, and that edge needs to transfer to the funded account. If you trade like a completely different person once funded, the evaluation proved nothing. The rule enforces that what you showed is what you actually do.
The trader's reality
Every rational trader pushes harder during the evaluation. The downside is a fee, not a funded account. You should be more aggressive when the stakes are lower. A pilot flies an empty plane differently to one with passengers. That's not gaming the system, that's correct risk management. A rule that criminalises this is criminalising rational behaviour.
The enforcement problem
Even if you accept the rule's logic, the implementation is what makes it dangerous. Enforcement is almost always discretionary. The typical clause: "as determined by the company at their sole discretion." There is no objective threshold. No metric. No definition of how different is too different.
This means the rule can sit dormant for months and be invoked exactly once: when you have a large payout pending. You traded consistently, but the firm decides your current approach differs from the evaluation and voids the reward. There's no appeal mechanism because there's no standard to appeal against.
What to look for before you buy
- Is it in the ToS at all? Search for "strategy", "utilization", "assessment", "consistent" in the terms. Many traders skip the ToS entirely.
- Is it objective or discretionary? A good rule defines what "different" means: trade size range, instrument class, holding period. Discretionary enforcement with no criteria is a blank-check clause.
- Is there a reset or appeal path? If you're accused of strategy switching, is there any recourse, or is the firm's determination final?
- Does the FAQ contradict it? If the FAQ says "trade however you like" and the ToS says "same strategy as evaluation," the ToS wins. You've been misled.