Surviving a prop-firm floor is only half the test
Written on 1 September 2026. Counts, rankings, extremes and labels here describe the audits on record that day; audits published or rebuilt since have changed some of them, and retired audits are not current evidence.
Verdict: a low account-death count does not make an EA suitable for funded trading. In the 26-audit sweep, 23 avoided the 6% floor at full size, but survival often came with little or no annual payout.
| Example | Size | Account deaths | Annual payout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Logan | Full | 1 | 0.42% |
| Logan | One sixth | 0 | 0.01% |
| Scalping Robot Pro | Full | 11 | 0.00% |
| Scalping Robot Pro | One eighth | 1 | 0.00% |
Read survival and payout together
Logan shows the trade-off clearly. Reducing its size to one sixth removed the observed floor breach, while annual payout fell to 0.01%. The safer setting survived, but it also removed almost all of the income.
Scalping Robot Pro is the harsher case. It still recorded one account death at one eighth size, and every size in the sweep showed 0.00% annual payout.
A clean floor result can still mislead
The comparison starts from each EA's closed daily balance path. A position can move deeply against the account before it closes, so a balance-only pass may miss pressure that appeared during the trade.
Use the floor result as one filter, then check the payout and the equity view in the linked audit. A setting that survives but pays almost nothing has solved the risk problem by removing the reason to trade.