Prop Firm Challenges
Ad Paid links & important information about these products

Ad / advertising disclosure: links marked 'Ad' are paid affiliate links - we earn a commission if you buy an evaluation through them; this can affect which firms are listed, not the terms you receive. What this page is: a factual comparison of published fees and rules, collected from at least two public sources on the date shown and cross-checked; per-field rankings are arithmetic over the tracked set (see Methodology). It is not a recommendation or opinion about whether you should buy any evaluation, and it is not financial advice. What these products are: prop-firm 'challenges' are paid evaluations on simulated accounts; any later 'funded' stage is a contractual profit share from the firm, not an investment return; most participants do not pass; fees are generally non-refundable. The firms listed are not authorised or supervised by the FMA (NZ), ASIC (AU), FCA (UK), CFTC/SEC (US) or any EU regulator, and you have no investor-compensation protection. Operated from New Zealand.

Blue Guardian 2-Step $100K vs The5ers High Stakes 2-Step $100K

3 of 7 published terms differ between these two offers. Every figure below is read from the firm's own published terms and an independent source, cross-checked, and dated 2026-09-22.

Blue Guardian 2-Step $100K

Full terms, capture history and rankings →

Ad
Blue Guardian 2-Step $100K — firm's sitePaid link — we may earn a commission. It does not change the terms you receive.

The5ers High Stakes 2-Step $100K

Full terms, capture history and rankings →

Ad
The5ers High Stakes 2-Step $100K — firm's sitePaid link — we may earn a commission. It does not change the terms you receive.

Every published term, side by side

TermBlue Guardian 2-Step $100KThe5ers High Stakes 2-Step $100KDifference
Profit target (step 1)8%10%Blue Guardian 2-Step $100K is lower by 2 percentage points.
Profit target (step 2)4%5%Blue Guardian 2-Step $100K is lower by 1 percentage points.
Minimum trading days—3Not published by both.
Account size$100,000$100,000Identical.
Max daily loss4%4%Identical.
Max overall loss8%8%Identical.
Evaluation steps22Identical.

Differences are arithmetic over the two figures shown, in the field's own units. There is no overall score on this page and nothing here is a recommendation: which of these differences matters depends entirely on how someone trades. How these figures are collected →

What the differences mean

Why do evaluations require a minimum number of trading days?

A minimum trading day requirement sets a floor on the number of separate sessions in which activity must occur before an evaluation can be marked as passed. It exists because a profit target can, in principle, be reached by one oversized position held through one favourable move. That outcome tells the firm nothing about how a trader sizes, exits or repeats decisions. By forcing activity to be spread across distinct sessions, the condition converts the test from a single event into a sequence, which is what the firm claims to be measuring. Full explanation →

What is a profit target and how is it measured?

A profit target is the gain a simulated account must show before an evaluation phase counts as passed. It is measured against the account's nominal size — the notional balance the simulated account is opened with — and not against the fee paid to enter. The two numbers are unrelated in kind: the fee is an amount actually paid, while the nominal size is a reference figure used to scale the rules. Because the target is expressed as a proportion of that reference figure, the same proportional target represents a different absolute gain on each account size offered, while the underlying trading requirement stays the same in relative terms. Full explanation →

Compare against others