Upcomers is a prop trading firm operated by Royal Flow - FZCO, a company registered in the United Arab Emirates. It sells evaluation and instant-funding accounts from $5K up to $1.5M, with forex, futures and crypto products, and names MetaTrader 5, cTrader, TradeLocker, Match-Trader and Upcomers X as its platforms. Two things stand out. Its listed challenge prices are among the lowest you will find, and its payout terms read generously: up to 100% profit split, on-demand payouts and a firm-reported processing time of under an hour. The trade-off is in how payouts are reviewed. Traders’ published accounts describe the firm cutting payouts to 50% and locking future withdrawals at that level under an internal risk framework it does not disclose. Its Trustpilot profile is split almost evenly between five-star and one-star ratings.
Who operates Upcomers and what you are buying
The contracting entity is Royal Flow - FZCO. “FZCO” is the suffix used for a Free Zone Company in the UAE, a corporate form common among firms based in Dubai’s free zones. When you buy a challenge, the company name on your trader agreement tells you who your counterparty is and which jurisdiction’s courts and rules apply to any dispute. It is not a financial services licence. A prop firm evaluation is a purchase of a service under that firm’s own terms, so the firm’s rulebook and trader agreement, rather than a regulator’s client-money rules, govern what happens if a payout is reduced or an account is closed.
The business model is the standard evaluation format. You pay a one-time fee for an account of a stated size. On the evaluation programs you must reach a profit target without breaching the daily or overall loss limits. Once you pass, or immediately on an instant account, you trade a funded account and can request a share of the profits under the payout rules. The fee is your maximum direct loss on the account itself. Your upside is the profit split on whatever the firm approves at payout review, and that review is where Upcomers’ terms need the closest reading.
Upcomers is also a young brand. One trader who holds two funded accounts describes it as “a new company,” and the longest relationships in published reviews run to about a year and a half. Its history of paying out at scale is shorter than at the large incumbents.
The programs: Ash, Thunderbolt, Phoenix and Futures Horizon
Upcomers sells 37 challenges across four programs. Three are forex and CFD programs, and when we checked on 13 November 2026 the home page listed sizes up to $2M, with the 1 Step Thunderbolt starting at $5K and an instant account offered from $2K. The fourth, Futures Horizon, is a futures program. Sizes of $150K and $400K also exist, outside the ten-step ladder the three forex programs share. The loss limits differ by program. The 1 Step Thunderbolt lists a 3% daily drawdown and 6% maximum drawdown, Instant Vanguard lists 4% and 8%, and 2 Step Phoenix Legacy lists 5% and 10%, with 1:100 leverage and on-demand payouts quoted on the site. What separates the programs is the number of steps and the profit target.
Classic Ash (Instant)
Classic Ash is the instant program. There is no multi-phase evaluation; you start on the account you buy. Ash still carries a 2% profit target, which gives it a target-to-drawdown ratio of 1:3 (2% target against 6% maximum loss). Upcomers does not say whether that 2% is a threshold before your first payout or something else.
The appeal of an instant account is time. You skip the evaluation and the risk of failing it, and go straight to trading for payouts. The cost is that the same 3% daily and 6% overall limits apply from day one on an account that can pay out. A bad first week ends the account just as it would end an evaluation, but there is no earlier phase in which you learned how the rules behave on your strategy. One reviewer traded a $5K Ash account as a newer trader and valued it as a structured way to learn. Another reported two payouts from a $50K instant account.
Classic Thunderbolt (1 Step)
Thunderbolt is a single-phase evaluation with a 5% profit target, the same 3% daily and 6% maximum loss, and a target-to-drawdown ratio of 1:1.2. Of the three forex programs, it asks for the largest single gain relative to the allowed drawdown. You need to make 5% before losing 6%, with no more than 3% lost on any one day.
On a $100K account (hypothetical illustration, with limits assumed to be measured from the starting balance), that means reaching $105,000 before equity falls to $94,000, and never losing $3,000 within a single day. The single phase means one hurdle rather than two, so the program suits traders who would rather face one larger target than two smaller ones in sequence.
Classic Phoenix (2 Steps)
Phoenix is a two-phase evaluation with a 4% target in each phase (8% total), a 3% daily loss limit and a static 6% maximum loss. Its 1:1.5 ratio compares the per-phase target of 4% to the 6% maximum loss.
The $100K Phoenix account also has no minimum trading days and an unlimited time limit. With no clock running, you are not forced to take extra risk late in a phase to finish before a deadline. You can stop trading when conditions do not suit your strategy and resume later.
“Static” matters here. A static maximum loss is fixed at a level set from the initial balance and does not move up as the account grows. On a $100K Phoenix account with a 6% static limit, the floor sits at $94,000. If you are up to $103,000 in phase one, you have $9,000 of room above the floor, not $6,000. A trailing limit would have moved the floor up with your gains and kept your room at a fixed distance from your peak. Upcomers states no max loss type for Ash and Thunderbolt, and the types it uses include Static, EOD and Market, so the Phoenix treatment cannot be assumed for the other two programs.
Futures Horizon
Futures Horizon is Upcomers’ futures offering. Futures-specialist firms typically use different drawdown conventions from forex programs, so if you trade futures, the best futures prop firms comparison is the more relevant benchmark for Horizon.
Program names you may see elsewhere
Traders’ reviews mention several product names that are not among Upcomers’ four current programs: Eon (described by one trader as a “Classic 5-phase evaluation” and by another as the cheapest product), Astral (a $100K account), Vanguard, Ignite Classic 1-Step, short 24-hour challenges, and newer account types described as removing the consistency rule. These may be older, renamed or newly added products. One reviewer said Upcomers continued to honor the conditions that applied to their accounts at the time of purchase, even after later updates changed the terms for new buyers of the same account type. If you hold an older account, the terms attached to your purchase may differ from the current ones, in either direction.
Daily loss, maximum loss and the PT:DD ratio in dollar terms
The three forex programs share the same loss limits, so the main practical difference between them is how far the target sits from the limit. The PT:DD ratio expresses that as profit target to maximum drawdown:
- Ash (Instant): 2% target, 6% max loss, 1:3
- Thunderbolt (1 Step): 5% target, 6% max loss, 1:1.2
- Phoenix (2 Steps): 4% per phase, 6% max loss, 1:1.5 per phase
A higher second number means more drawdown room per unit of required gain. In Ash, you have three times as much room to lose as you need to gain. In Thunderbolt, the room barely exceeds the target.
The 3% daily limit is the rule most likely to end an account, because it is half the overall limit. Two bad days in a row can leave you close to the overall floor even if each day stayed within its own limit. Take a hypothetical $50K account with a 3% daily limit ($1,500) and a 6% overall limit ($3,000), both measured from the starting balance. A loss of $1,400 on Monday and $1,400 on Tuesday breaks neither daily limit, yet leaves only $200 between your equity and the overall floor.
Check whether the daily limit is calculated on balance or equity, and from which reference point each day (the day’s starting balance, or the higher of balance and equity at the daily reset). That detail decides whether open losing trades count toward the limit before you close them, and whether profits made earlier in the day give you extra room. On an equity-based daily limit, a position that is down $1,600 on a $50K account breaches the $1,500 limit while still open, even if it later recovers. Until you know the definition for your program, trade as if floating losses count.
Leverage of 1:100
Every challenge carries 1:100 leverage. At that ratio, opening a position with $100,000 of notional value requires $1,000 of margin. Leverage sets how large a position the platform allows. It does not change the loss limits. On a $10K account at 1:100 you could open up to $1M notional, but a 1% adverse move on that position would cost $10,000, far beyond the $300 daily limit. Your effective risk is set by position size relative to the loss limits, not by the leverage ceiling. Leverage on individual instruments such as crypto, indices or oil may differ from the headline figure; check the contract specifications in the platform.
The 20% consistency rule
Every challenge carries a 20% consistency rule. Upcomers states the percentage but not the formula, and consistency rules vary across the industry. A common form caps the share of total profit that any single trading day may contribute.
As a hypothetical example, assume Upcomers applied a rule of that type at payout. If you made $5,000 over a payout period, no single day could account for more than $1,000 (20%). If one day produced $2,000, you would need total profits of at least $10,000 before the 20% condition was met, or the excess day would block or reduce the request depending on how the firm enforces it.
At 20%, a rule of this form would be strict. It would effectively require at least five days of comparable profit before a payout, and it would penalize strategies built around a few large winning days, such as news trading or swing trades that close in one large move. One trader’s review noted that Upcomers recently introduced account options that remove the consistency rule entirely and described that as a major improvement, which suggests the rule weighs on some traders.
Costs: what the listed prices mean
Prices differ by program even at the same size: a $100K account was listed at €93.90 on 1 Step Thunderbolt, €159 on 2 Step Phoenix Legacy and €249 on Instant Vanguard. A $100K Ash, Thunderbolt or Phoenix account costs the same. Each size carries two prices: at checkout on 13 November 2026, a $100K 1 Step Thunderbolt showed $109 against a listed $1,090. Several reviewers refer to a 90% discount applied across Upcomers’ evaluations, and the ratio between the two prices is consistent with that. The higher price is the useful one for long-term planning, because a promotional price can end. Upcomers has no public discount code, so the lower price is the firm’s own pricing rather than a code you apply.
The fee is described as one time. Expressed per $10K of account size, a $100K account costs $1.10 per $10K at the lower figure and $10.90 per $10K at the higher one. That makes the cost of failing an evaluation trivial at the reduced price and moderate at the standard price. If you want to compare entry costs against other firms, the cheapest prop firm challenges list ranks fees across the market.
What a low fee does and does not change
A cheap challenge lowers the cost of failure. It does not change the rules you have to pass, and it says nothing about what you will be paid if you succeed. If you value an account as an expected return, the fee is the smallest input once it is very low. The inputs that dominate are the probability of passing, the probability of reaching a payout, and the share of profit the firm actually approves.
A hypothetical illustration: suppose you buy a $100K Phoenix at $11, pass both phases, make 4% ($4,000) on the funded account and request a payout at a 90% split. The expected payout is $3,600. If the payout review approves 50% of that, you receive $1,800. The $11 fee is irrelevant to that outcome; the review decision moves it by $1,800.
Payment-method promotions
One reviewer reported paying for an Eon challenge with crypto and receiving a further 5% off on top of the 90% discount, as advertised at the time. On a second purchase of an Ash account, the extra 5% was not applied, and support declined to honor it on the grounds that “90% is already a lot.” If a stacked promotion is part of your reason to buy, confirm at checkout that it has been applied before you pay.
Trading costs beyond the fee
The challenge fee is not the only cost. Spreads, commissions and swaps reduce the profit you need to reach targets and the profit available for payout. Upcomers publishes a help article on whether there are hidden charges and another on fees and how orders fill. It has also published updated fee and order-fill information for perpetuals, including maker and taker fees. Maker fees apply to orders that add liquidity (typically limit orders resting in the book) and taker fees to orders that remove it (market orders or limits that execute immediately). On perpetual contracts the difference matters for anyone who trades frequently.
As a hypothetical, at a taker fee of 0.05% per side, a round trip of $100,000 notional would cost $100 ($50 to open and $50 to close). That is 0.1% of a $100K account per trade cycle, enough to absorb a meaningful part of a 4% target over 40 round trips. Use the fee rates in Upcomers’ own fee article, and note whether each rate is quoted per side or per round trip.
Reviewers’ descriptions of execution vary. Several describe spreads as reasonable or tight and execution as fast, including on forex pairs. One negative review accuses the firm of widening spreads at execution and booking hidden charges outside the trade ledger. That reviewer presents it as a description of how fraudulent firms operate in general, without trade records. The most practical check is your own platform history. Compare fill prices against quoted prices at the time of execution, and compare the commission and swap lines on closed trades with the published fee schedule.
Trading restrictions traders report
Beyond the headline rules, traders’ reviews describe several restrictions. These come from individual accounts, not from a published rulebook, and some may have changed. Each describes a way an account can be breached or a payout reduced.
Automated trading and trailing stops. One trader wrote that Upcomers does not accept automated activity, including MetaTrader 5’s built-in trailing stop function, and that everything must be done manually. If true, this rules out Expert Advisors, trade copiers and any MT5 feature that modifies orders automatically. For traders who rely on trailing stops for risk management, that is a material change to their method.
Short holding times and scalping. A one-star review refers to a “1 minute and 59 seconds” rule and calls it a scalping ban disguised as a risk rule. A separate trader said their payout was denied over micro-scalping. Neither review quotes the rule text, so the minimum holding time for trades held for seconds or a few minutes is unconfirmed.
A maximum single-trade loss parameter. The same critical review mentions a “max single trade loss” parameter. Firms that use such a limit cap how much any one trade may lose, often as a fraction of the account, separately from daily and overall limits. If Upcomers applies one to your program, it affects position sizing and stop placement, and it can apply even when your daily loss is well within limit.
Risk management at payout review. The most consequential restriction is not a single rule but a discretionary payout review, described in the payout section below. Review statements have cited how stop losses were managed while trades were open, so stop-loss handling appears to be part of what is assessed.
Platforms, markets and instruments
Upcomers offers four platforms: MetaTrader 5, cTrader, TradeLocker and Match-Trader. That is a wider choice than many firms offer. It lets you stay on the platform you already know rather than adapt your charting, order types and shortcuts to a new one. Reviewers who mention the platform mostly refer to MT5, which one trader rated highly.
The platforms differ in ways that interact with prop firm rules. cTrader and MT5 support algorithmic trading (cBots and Expert Advisors), and MT5 has a native trailing stop. Given the reported restriction on automated activity, assume those features are not usable until confirmed. The platforms also show floating profit and loss differently and handle partial fills differently, so learn how your chosen platform displays equity before you rely on it to manage a daily loss limit.
The instrument list covers three market types, forex, futures and crypto, across currencies, gold, oil, indices, stocks, futures, perpetuals and crypto. Perpetuals, which have no expiry and use funding payments to stay close to the spot price, come with their own maker/taker fee schedule published by the firm. If crypto perpetuals are your main market, the best crypto prop firms comparison sets Upcomers against firms built around that product.
Several reviewers mention a dashboard they describe as informative and easy to use, and an AI Coach that reviews trades and is offered free. One trader said they had not seen it at other firms.
Payout terms
Upcomers offers a profit split of up to 100%, on-demand payout frequency, a firm-reported processing time of under an hour, and bank transfer and crypto as payout methods.
Split options
Upcomers’ announced program terms set the standard split at 90%, adjustable to 80% or 100% at checkout. “Up to 100%” is therefore a configuration you choose and presumably pay for, not the default. One reviewer refers to a “99% promised split” on their account, which may reflect an earlier offer or a different product. The split selected at purchase is the one that applies to your account, so record it from your order confirmation.
Frequency and caps
On-demand payouts mean you are not waiting for a fixed 14-day or monthly cycle. You request once your account meets the payout conditions. Those conditions include the 20% consistency rule and, on Ash, possibly the 2% target. A trader who otherwise praised the firm described a payout cap structure that lifts only at the eighth payout, after which withdrawals become unlimited. If that structure applies to your account, the amount per request is limited during the early payouts even when frequency is not, and a large profitable period may have to be withdrawn in several capped requests.
Speed
The under-an-hour processing time is firm-reported. One trader says payouts were approved in under three hours; others describe them as fast or immediate. Processing time covers the firm’s approval, not the receipt of funds, which depends on the method. A crypto transfer can arrive soon after approval, while bank transfers depend on the receiving bank and on international transfer timing. One trader described payout details entered incorrectly on the firm’s side, which took two weeks of correspondence with support and finance to fix. Another said they had entered the wrong bank details themselves, and support helped correct them and pay out.
The firm-reported payout total
Upcomers reports $10,500,000 in total payouts, a figure the firm publishes itself. Among the 50 firms that publish a payout total, that ranks 32nd and represents 0.2% of all reported payouts. The largest totals in that group run into the hundreds of millions and above.
Payout reviews and the 50% limit
This is the risk the low fee does not offset. Several detailed reviews describe the same pattern:
One trader completed a second payout cycle of $2,000 and was told they would receive 50% of it, and that future payouts would be limited to 50%. The reason given was trading with prohibited strategies, although the trader says they used exactly the same strategy for a payout approved in full the previous month. The review statement cited insufficient lifecycle data on how stop losses were managed. The trader challenged the decision and reported no response after more than 72 hours, then accepted the approved $990.
Another trader passed an Ash challenge after a breach that the firm later acknowledged as a “phantom breach.” Restoring that account took three weeks of emails across the support, risk and tech teams. They then reached a payout and were approved for 50% of the split, with the same 50% penalty applied to all future payouts. The trader asked which clause of the signed trader agreement supported the decision. The firm declined, saying its scoring system is internal and cannot be disclosed. This trader still rated the firm highly on price and platform, while giving 1 out of 5 for payout and 0 out of 5 for transparency.
A third trader, with seven years’ experience by their own account, received 35% of their first payout and was locked at 50% for future payouts. They also wrote that they had been incentivized to leave a positive review before their first payout and had withdrawn that review.
A fourth one-star review puts it more bluntly: the firm suits traders who buy multiple challenges and rarely reach payouts, and locks out traders who prove consistently profitable.
Against these, many reviews report clean payouts: multiple withdrawals over six months, four payouts across Phoenix and Ignite accounts, two each from instant and Vanguard accounts, and a first $99 payout on a $5K account. One trader wrote that disciplined risk management makes payouts achievable. Another said many people criticize the firm over payouts but they had seen none of the problems described.
The two sets of reviews are not contradictory. A firm can pay many traders promptly and still reduce or cap others through a discretionary review. Review texts cannot tell you how often reductions happen. What they establish is that the mechanism exists. The firm can cut an individual payout to 50% or lower, apply that cut to all future payouts on the account, and decline to explain the scoring behind it. The listed profit split is therefore a ceiling, and the outcome depends on a review you cannot see in advance.
What this means in practice
If you plan to trade an Upcomers account for meaningful payouts, start from that mechanism. Request the full trader agreement and the prohibited-practices list before your first trade, and keep copies with the date you received them. Trade with fixed stop losses set at entry and keep them in place, since stop-loss handling is cited in review statements. Request small, early payouts rather than letting a large balance build up, because a reduction applied to a small first payout tells you how your strategy is classified before much is at stake. Keep your own platform trade history export. Several reviewers resolved disputes, including the phantom breach, only by sending their MT5 history.
Reading the Trustpilot profile
Upcomers’ Trustpilot rating is 2.9 from 578 reviews. The split by stars explains why that average is misleading on its own: 287 five-star reviews, 47 four-star, 29 three-star, 7 two-star and 208 one-star. About half the reviews are five stars and about 36% are one star. The three middle categories together account for 83 reviews, around 14%. Most reviewers either strongly endorse the firm or strongly reject it.
To understand the split, read the reviews themselves, sorted to the lowest ratings and filtered to recent dates. Concentrate on reviews from traders who reached the payout stage. A five-star review from someone still in the challenge phase, which describes many of the positive reviews, tells you about the purchase process, the dashboard and support. It does not tell you about payouts. The review pool also includes many reviews in Spanish, Portuguese and French, which mostly praise support speed, pricing and clear rules.
Customer support and community
Support is the most consistently praised aspect in positive reviews. Traders describe fast replies on tickets, email and Discord, help with account access issues, and in one case reward credits toward a new account after a trader blew their previous one. One reviewer mentions a complimentary reset. Others mention free accounts given away on the firm’s Discord and a referral program paying 50% to referrers, as described by one trader.
There is a qualification, from the trader who documented the phantom breach and the 50% payout cut. They describe support as fast to respond but slow to resolve, with three weeks and many emails needed to restore an account. They also say responses read as heavily AI-generated, including one email that offered to help rewrite their own message in “more natural English.” Others praise named human support agents.
Strengths and trade-offs
Entry cost. At the reduced prices, Upcomers is cheap enough to test its platforms and rules for a few dollars per small account. Even at the standard prices, the fees are moderate for the sizes offered.
Account range. Ten sizes per forex program, from $5K to $1.5M, mean you can scale up within the same rulebook. The $1.5M top size is one of the specific attractions reviewers mention.
Program choice on identical prices. Because Ash, Thunderbolt and Phoenix cost the same at each size, you choose by structure rather than price: instant access, a single 5% target, or two 4% targets with a static floor.
Flexible evaluation conditions. No minimum trading days on any challenge and an unlimited time limit on the $100K Phoenix account remove the pressure to trade on a schedule.
Platform breadth. Four platforms and three market types suit traders with established tools and multi-asset strategies.
Payout mechanics on paper. On-demand frequency, a 90% standard split with 80% and 100% options, bank and crypto methods, and a firm-reported sub-hour processing time are generous terms among prop firms.
The trade-offs mirror those strengths. The 3% daily limit is half the overall limit and is the tightest constraint on every program. The 20% consistency rule may block payouts for traders with uneven daily profits, depending on how it is defined. Reported restrictions on automation, trailing stops and very short holding times rule out some styles. Above all, payout outcomes depend on an undisclosed review that can cut a payout to 50% and keep it there. The firm is young, and its self-reported payout total is small relative to the market leaders. Its public review profile shows a large group of dissatisfied users alongside a larger group of satisfied ones.
Who Upcomers may suit, and who should be cautious
Upcomers’ terms fit a few profiles well.
A trader who wants to learn evaluation rules cheaply can use small accounts at the reduced prices to practice managing a daily limit, without much at stake. Several reviewers frame their accounts this way, including newer traders who credit the rules with building discipline.
A discretionary trader with hard stops on every trade, moderate holding times and steady daily results fits the rules as written and the risk concerns described in payout reviews. That style is also the most likely to satisfy a 20% consistency rule.
A trader who wants an instant account without an evaluation can use Ash, with its 1:3 target-to-drawdown ratio. If you are comparing instant structures across firms, the best instant funding prop firms list sets out the alternatives.
Caution is warranted in other cases. Scalpers and anyone trading positions held for seconds face reported short-trade rules and at least one payout denial tied to micro-scalping. Traders who rely on Expert Advisors, copiers or trailing stops face a reported ban on automated activity. Traders whose profits come from a few large days may run into the consistency rule. Anyone planning to scale to large accounts and withdraw large sums should weigh the reported eighth-payout cap and the possibility of a 50% lock applied across all future payouts. The larger the expected payout, the more that discretion matters relative to the low entry price.
If those risks outweigh the pricing for your strategy, the broader prop firm comparison covers firms with longer track records and larger reported payout totals, such as FundedNext, which you can compare on rules and payout conditions.
How we checked Upcomers
We visited upcomers.com on 13 November 2026 from Tallinn, Estonia. We opened the home page, scrolled down to the footer and clicked through to the Legal Disclaimer. We also opened the About, challenge plans, payouts, platforms and terms pages, along with the help center collections on general rules, payouts, billing and futures rules. Last, we pressed “Start challenge” and followed it to the checkout.
Prices are public. The home page listed a $5K 1 Step Thunderbolt at €13.90 and a $1M at €619, under banners reading “93% off”. The checkout page was headed “Black Friday 2.0” and showed prices before we entered any details. A $100K 1 Step Thunderbolt there read $109 against $1,090. We did not sign up or pay, so we cannot say what the final step asks for. Rules differ by program. Thunderbolt lists a 5% target with a 3% daily and 6% maximum drawdown, while 2 Step Phoenix Legacy lists 5%, 5% and 10%.
Two companies appear in the small print. The footer names Royal Flow - FZCO, described as incorporated in the United Arab Emirates under IFZA licence 35886 at Dubai Silicon Oasis. It also names Upcomers Ltd., a Saint Lucia company with registration number 2025-00579. Neither number is a licence held in a register we can query, so we ran no register check. That gap matters. We saw no risk warning on the pages we opened.
We read the Trustpilot profile on 13 November 2026. It showed 2.9/5 from 585 reviews, with 49% five-star and 36% one-star ratings, and the company had replied to all 8 of the newest reviews. The Wayback Machine’s first capture of the domain dates from 2003-05-22, which may predate the current brand. We did not trade or request a withdrawal, so we could not test how the payout review treats a real request.
Before you buy an Upcomers account
Work through these points in order, and keep written answers from support where the published rules leave a question open:
- Choose the program by structure. Prices are identical across Ash, Thunderbolt and Phoenix at each size, so pick by target, steps and drawdown type, not cost.
- Read the daily loss definition. Find out whether it is balance- or equity-based, the reference point at each reset, and the daily reset time in your time zone.
- Confirm the drawdown type for your program. Only Phoenix has a stated static maximum loss. On Futures Horizon, confirm the targets, drawdown type and sizes as well.
- Get the consistency formula. Establish exactly how the 20% is calculated: whether it is measured on days or trades, whether it applies during evaluation or only at payout, and whether breaking it fails the account or just delays the withdrawal.
- Ask about automation, trailing stops, minimum holding time and any single-trade loss cap, in writing, including whether platform-native trailing stops are permitted on your platform.
- Check what the 2% target on Ash means, and whether it is a threshold before your first payout.
- Record your split selection at checkout (80%, 90% or 100%) and any discount or promotion applied, from the order confirmation.
- Ask for the payout cap schedule by account size and payout number.
- Read the trader agreement section on payout review, risk scoring and reductions, and note whether reductions can apply to future payouts.
- Export your platform trade history regularly and keep it alongside the rule pages as they stood when you bought.
A cheap first account run through this process costs very little and shows how Upcomers classifies your particular strategy at payout review. Make a small first withdrawal before you commit a larger account.
Alternatives
| Provider | Score | Fee | Split | Payouts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.9/10 | $660 | 80% | 15 days or 30 calendar days | Review | |
| 7.1/10 | $449 | up to 95% (80% during live phase) | every 14 days | Review | |
| 6.8/10 | $405 | Up to 90% ** | Every 14 days | Review |