1. Introduction
Between 2020 and 2024, the number of traders signing up with simulated prop firms surged dramatically, fueled by social media influencers, YouTube strategy videos, and enticing profit splits. Global interest in proprietary trading has skyrocketed; search demand for “prop firm” increased by 4,034% during this period, reflecting the explosive popularity of funded trading opportunities. Additionally, overall interest in proprietary trading has grown by 607% since 2020, showing how much attention these firms have gained in recent years.
For many aspiring traders, the promise was simple: prove your skill in a demo account, get funded, and start earning, no personal capital required. On the surface, it looks like a golden era for traders. However, beneath the glossy marketing lies a sobering question: Are these simulated proprietary trading firms built to last, or are they cleverly packaged subscription models with no real capital at stake?
At the same time, traditional Wall Street prop firms, such as Jane Street, DRW, and SIG, have been quietly and steadily maintaining their decades-long dominance, relying on real money, rigorous in-house training, and institutional-grade risk management.
This article will explore the real differences between simulated prop firms and real Wall Street proprietary trading firms. We’ll break down how each model works, why simulated firms are popular but possibly unsustainable, and what every serious trader should know before picking their path.
2. What Are Prop Trading Firms?
Proprietary trading firms, often called prop firms, are companies that trade stocks, forex, futures, or options using their capital, rather than managing client funds. The key difference? The firm’s money is on the line, not investor funds.
A. How Prop Firms Make Money
Prop firms generate profits in two main ways:
-
Trading their capital:
Firms take market positions and profit directly from successful trades.
-
Sharing profits with traders:
Some firms provide capital to skilled traders in exchange for a percentage of their earnings.
Traders at prop firms either work with tight risk controls on firm capital or, in modern setups, undergo evaluation programs before gaining access to these funds.
B. The Traditional Model
Traditional Wall Street-style prop firms, such as Jane Street, Tower Research, and Jump Trading, hire salaried traders, train them extensively, and provide institutional-level infrastructure. These firms often focus on high-frequency trading (HFT), algorithmic strategies, and arbitrage across global markets.
C. The Simulated Model
In contrast, retail-funded prop firms (also called “simulated prop firms”) don’t provide access to real capital immediately. Instead, traders first complete demo account evaluations, meeting profit targets and adhering to strict risk rules (like drawdown limits). If successful, traders are “funded”, though their trades may still not hit the live market. Instead, these firms often generate revenue from subscription fees and trading challenges, rather than market profits.
Although both models are called prop firms, they operate on fundamentally different principles, especially in risk management, trader incentives, and long-term sustainability.
3. Why Understanding Prop Firms Matters for Traders
With trading platforms more accessible than ever, and social media flooded with traders flaunting challenge passes and payouts, many beginners find themselves asking: “Which prop firm route is right for me?”
Understanding how proprietary trading firms operate, both the traditional institutional model and the modern simulated model, isn’t just a curiosity. It’s a critical decision factor for anyone serious about building a sustainable trading career.
A. The Risks of Not Knowing the Difference
- Misaligned Expectations: Many traders join simulated prop programs expecting Wall Street-style support and capital, only to face strict rules, tight drawdowns, and payout delays.
- Financial & Psychological Costs: Without understanding the differences, traders waste money on repeated challenges and suffer burnout, often without ever trading real capital.
- Limited Growth Trajectory: Unlike traditional firms that offer mentoring, team collaboration, and career advancement, many simulated firms lack long-term growth pathways, causing traders to hit a ceiling faster than expected.
B. Where Real Opportunity Lies
For traders aiming to go professional, the structure and incentives of a firm matter just as much as strategy and win rate. Simulated firms can be a stepping stone, but understanding their differences from firms with real capital helps clarify:
- Which model best fits your goals
- Whether short-term payouts or long-term development matter more
- How to manage risk and expectations responsibly
Next, we’ll unpack how the world of prop trading evolved—and why today’s firms look so different from those on Wall Street two decades ago.
4. A Brief History of Prop Trading
Proprietary trading has existed for centuries, but it wasn’t until the late 20th century that prop firms became a structured, dominant force in the financial ecosystem.
Early Days: The Foundation of Wall Street Trading
In 1792, the Buttonwood Agreement was signed by 24 stockbrokers on Wall Street, laying the foundation for the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In the following decades, trading was client-driven, with brokerages making money through commissions and fees rather than speculating with their capital.
1980s–1990s: The Rise of Institutional Prop Trading
By the 1980s, proprietary trading exploded as major investment banks like Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers, and Morgan Stanley established dedicated prop desks, trading with firm capital instead of client money. This era was famously captured in Michael Lewis’s 1989 book Liar’s Poker, detailing the high-stakes bond trading culture at Salomon Brothers, where firms leveraged superior technology and market access for massive profits.
Meanwhile, Richard Dennis, a commodities trader, proved that trading skill could be taught through his Turtle Traders experiment, where carefully trained traders successfully used predefined strategies to generate market returns.
2000s: The Rise of Quant Trading & Tighter Regulations
The dot-com boom and advancements in computing ushered in the age of quantitative trading, where firms relied on algorithms and data science rather than discretionary traders. Companies like Jane Street, DRW, and Jump Trading started using programming-driven strategies to outperform human traders. The 2008 Financial Crisis marked a turning point. Risky proprietary bets contributed to instability, leading to public backlash and stricter regulations on prop trading.
Post-2008: The Volcker Rule & Decline of Traditional Prop Desks
2010 – The Volcker Rule (part of the Dodd-Frank Act) was enacted in the U.S., banning banks from proprietary trading with their accounts. As a result, traditional prop desks within banks shut down or spun off into independent hedge funds and trading firms.
2015–Present: The Rise of Retail & Simulated Prop Firms
With the rise of retail trading platforms and a global push for financial independence, a new model emerged: simulated prop firms. These firms offered traders “capital” contingent on passing demo challenges, but in many cases, the funds weren’t deployed into live markets. Unlike the institutional models of past decades, these firms generated revenue primarily from subscription fees and trader challenges rather than market profits.
Prop Trading Today: A Shift in Meaning
The term “prop firm” now means something entirely different than it did in past decades. While institutional firms like Jane Street and DRW still exist, many modern “prop firms” function more like trading evaluations than true proprietary trading desks.
In the next section, we’ll break down the modern types of prop firms and how they operate today.
5. Types of Prop Firms
Modern proprietary trading firms can now be broadly classified into two distinct categories: simulated prop firms and real capital deployment firms. While both promise access to capital and potential profit-sharing, the underlying models and trader experiences differ dramatically.
A. Simulated Prop Firms
These firms offer traders a chance to prove their skills on a simulated account, often called a “demo” or “evaluation” phase, to earn a funded trading account after meeting specific criteria (e.g., profit targets, drawdown limits, time limits). You’re essentially proving that you can manage risk in a game-like simulation. If you “win,” you receive a cut of hypothetical profits, often from internal accounting, not real market returns.
Key Features:
- No real capital is deployed during challenges. Traders operate in a simulated environment using data from live markets, but no actual trades hit the real order book.
- Capital is virtual, even after being “funded,” some firms do not route trades to the market.
- The revenue model is primarily fee-based. Traders pay for challenge attempts; firms profit whether or not the trader passes.
- Short-term focus. Most challenges are designed to be completed in 30 days or less, incentivising high-risk, high-return behaviour.
- Examples: FTMO, MyForexFunds (before its regulatory issues), The5ers, TopStep (for futures), and similar platforms.
B. Real Capital Deployment Firms
These are traditional or modern firms that deploy their capital into the live markets — meaning real trades, real risk, and real accountability. You’re trading in real markets with skin in the game. Success means consistent performance under pressure, often over longer periods.
Key Features:
- Traders work with the firm’s real money. Each trade has an actual impact on the firm’s balance sheet.
- Rigorous hiring process. These firms often require extensive interviews, testing, and sometimes in-person training.
- Structured profit-sharing. Traders usually receive a performance-based cut (e.g., 20–50%) of net gains.
- Access to advanced tools and mentorship. Some firms provide proprietary technology, research support, and coaching.
- Examples: Jane Street, SIG (Susquehanna International Group), SMB Capital, DRW, and certain hedge fund-backed trading arms.
C. A Third Hybrid Model?
Some firms operate in a grey area, offering simulated challenges but routing trades to live markets once a trader qualifies. However, transparency is often lacking, and many of these still lean heavily on revenue from evaluation fees rather than actual trading profits.
| Feature | Simulated Prop Firms | Real Capital Deployment Firms |
| Real Money at Risk | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Trader Selection Process | Pay-to-enter challenge | Competitive hiring process |
| Trade Execution | Simulated/demo | Live market orders |
| Primary Revenue Source | Challenge fees | Trading profits |
| Long-Term Sustainability | Often questionable | Proven over decades |
Table Showing Key Differences Between Simulated and Real Prop Firms
While both types use the term “prop trading,” the stakes, structure, and sustainability of each model are radically different. Next, we’ll break down how each model works and why that matters.
6. How Each Model Works
A. Simulated Prop Firms
Simulated prop firms operate on a pay-to-prove system, where traders must pass a challenge or evaluation phase to gain access to a funded account. They pay an entry fee and must meet strict profit targets, such as hitting 10% profit while staying within drawdown limits. If successful, they are “funded,” but often in another simulated account, rather than with real market capital.
Behind the scenes:
- Trades rarely hit live markets.
- Payouts typically come from the firm’s internal revenue, not actual trading profits.
- Firms generate most of their income from challenge fees, rather than successful trader performance.
The model incentivises high-risk, short-term trading, as most challenges are designed to be completed in 30 days or less. The goal is to increase trader participation at scale while managing risk through strict rules and frequent resets.
B. Real Capital Deployment Firms
Traditional prop firms operate on a true capital-backed model, funding traders with real money instead of simulations. They recruit, train, and closely monitor traders, ensuring their performance directly impacts the firm’s bottom line.
Behind the scenes:
- All trades are executed in live markets, exposing traders to real financial risk.
- Profits are shared with traders based on firm policy, usually through structured agreements (e.g., 20–50% of net gains).
- Firms invest in proprietary technology, research, and mentorship to foster long-term trader success.
The goal is to build consistent, skilled traders who generate sustainable market profits.
While both models aim to identify trading talent, only one puts real money on the line, a distinction that shapes not only the structure of the firm but its long-term sustainability in the trading industry.
7. Why Simulated Prop Firms Struggle With Long-Term Sustainability
- Revenue Depends on Trader Failure
Simulated prop firms primarily earn from evaluation fees, not actual trading profits. This creates a paradox: for the model to remain profitable, most traders must fail. While this approach maintains high margins in the short term, it’s neither scalable nor sustainable, especially as traders grow more aware of the system’s limitations.
- No Real Market Exposure
Since trades aren’t executed in live markets, firms don’t profit from successful traders. Instead, payouts come from internal revenue, meaning skilled traders become a financial liability rather than an asset. As more traders pass evaluations, firms experience growing financial strain without the safety net of real market gains.
- Low Trader Retention
Many traders abandon the model after repeated failures or payout delays, leading to high churn rates. To stay afloat, firms must constantly acquire new customers, an increasingly expensive and unsustainable tactic as market competition intensifies.
- Reputational Risks and Regulatory Scrutiny
Concerns over transparency, unfair rule enforcement, and phantom payouts continue to rise. With limited regulatory oversight, simulated firms face public scrutiny, negative reviews, or potential shutdowns, especially if authorities move to classify them as unlicensed brokers or gaming platforms.
While simulated prop firms offer a low-barrier entry into trading, their business model lacks long-term stability. Without real capital at stake or a scalable profit structure, many risk burning out before they can evolve into viable institutions.
8. Pros and Cons of Each Model
Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of both simulated and traditional prop firms helps traders make informed decisions based on their goals, risk appetite, and trading style.
A. Simulated Prop Firms
Pros:
- Low Capital Barrier: Traders can access large virtual capital accounts for as little as $50–$300 in evaluation fees.
- Remote & Accessible: All you need is an internet connection. No need to move to a financial hub or interview with a firm.
- Instant Feedback Loop: Evaluations are often quick, helping traders test strategies under pressure.
- Attractive for Newcomers: Low-stakes environment offers psychological safety to practice trading rules and discipline.
Cons:
- No Real Capital Deployment: Trades are simulated, so market conditions may not behave the same way as live environments.
- Revenue Comes From Traders, Not Markets: Firms profit mainly from failed evaluations, not from market gains, a conflict of interest.
- Unrealistic Risk Parameters: Tight drawdown rules and inconsistent execution expectations can stunt long-term learning.
- Questionable Longevity: Many firms disappear or change models as trader payouts increase or evaluation interest wanes.
B. Traditional Prop Firms
Pros:
- Genuine Market Exposure: Profits are generated from real trading, which helps traders understand execution, slippage, and risk at a deeper level.
- Mentorship & Community: Many offer training, in-house support, and performance feedback.
- Aligned Incentives: The firm only wins when the trader wins, which fosters better long-term development.
- Path to Bigger Roles: Successful traders often get access to more capital, institutional clients, or even hedge fund careers.
Cons:
- High Barrier to Entry: Often requires a track record, interviews, and sometimes personal capital at risk.
- Geographically Limited: Many firms require traders to be on-site or work specific hours.
- Slower Onboarding: Unlike simulated firms, the hiring and funding process can take weeks or months.
Each model serves a different kind of trader. Simulated firms offer speed and accessibility, but may lack depth. Traditional firms offer authenticity and professional growth, but demand more patience and experience.
9. What Traders Should Know Before Choosing a Prop Route
Choosing between a simulated or traditional prop trading firm isn’t just about capital — it’s about your goals, temperament, and willingness to grow in the craft of trading.
- Know Your Objectives
Are you looking to earn quick payouts, practice in a low-risk environment, or build a career in trading?
- If you’re seeking short-term excitement and rapid feedback, a simulated prop firm may feel like a good entry point.
- But if your aim is long-term mastery and potentially a professional trading career, you’ll likely need the depth and discipline of a real capital firm.
- Evaluate the Funding Model
Simulated firms often promise “funding” but operate using demo accounts. The capital they give you isn’t real — your payouts typically come from other traders’ fees, not profits made in the market.
In contrast, real prop firms deploy their own money, so your performance genuinely matters. Losses are felt; gains are shared.
- Scrutinise Risk Rules
Simulated firms often set up arbitrary rules, like daily loss limits or trailing drawdowns, which can break your rhythm even when you’re profitable overall. Real firms tend to use risk frameworks that reflect actual market dynamics, such as max portfolio exposure, sector caps, and stop-loss protocols.
- Research Longevity and Credibility
Ask:
- How long has the firm existed?
- Does it have a physical location?
- Are payouts transparent and consistent?
- Are there actual traders at the top, or is it run by marketers?
This is especially important with simulated firms, where the barrier to entry is low and closures are frequent.
- Understand Psychological Impact
Simulated firms might train you to trade for rules, not for the market. You become obsessed with not breaking the evaluation logic rather than building adaptable strategies.
Real firms teach you how to trade within a living, breathing system where markets, not rules, are your challenge.
- Don’t Rush the Decision
Many traders jump into simulated prop firms without understanding the full picture. Take time to:
- Read reviews
- Ask questions in trading communities
- Test your strategies independently
- Understand how the firm makes money
In trading, your environment matters as much as your edge.
We’ll now see the future outlook for both prop firms.
10. Future Outlook
The prop trading landscape is evolving rapidly. As both simulated and real capital models expand, the question arises: which one offers longevity, value, and real opportunity for traders?
A. The Simulated Prop Model
Simulated prop firms have grown exponentially in recent years, thanks to, first of all, the gamification of trading evaluations, followed by low entry costs, and aggressive social media marketing.
But this model has structural weaknesses, such as the fact that sustainability is tied to continuous trader sign-ups. Also, traders are not trading real money, which limits learning, and regulatory grey zones may challenge their operations in the future
If these firms fail to provide genuine career paths or evolve their payout structures, many may collapse or consolidate in the next market cycle.
However, they may still serve as a gateway for new traders, an on-ramp to real capital, if managed responsibly.
B. The Real Capital Model
Real prop firms, those that deploy actual capital, have weathered decades of market evolution, from the trading pits of Chicago to today’s algorithmic desks.
While more selective and less “hyped,” these firms are built on performance, not participation. They are also backed by infrastructure, research, and experience, and they are more likely to scale sustainably with AI, data tools, and remote infrastructure.
They are already adopting modern recruitment, remote funding structures, and performance-tracking technology, quietly matching the convenience of simulated firms, but with deeper substance.
C. What Will Likely Survive?
Hybrid models may emerge, combining rigorous evaluation, real capital backing, and trader mentorship.
Traders who adapt, using simulations to train, then transitioning to real capital, will have the edge.
Firms with transparency, clear incentives, and long-term trader support will outlive those designed for volume and churn.
In short, real capital firms have the foundation to last. Simulated firms have marketing, but must evolve or fade.
Conclusion
The rise of simulated prop firms has undeniably reshaped how aspiring traders enter the financial world. With flashy dashboards, low barriers to entry, and gamified evaluations, they’ve made trading more accessible, but not necessarily more sustainable.
Real Wall Street prop firms, on the other hand, may lack the hype, but they offer something far more enduring: infrastructure, real capital, and decades of survival through multiple market cycles.
The key takeaway? Not all prop firms are created equal. Simulated firms can offer a valuable training ground, but without real capital, real pressure, and real feedback loops, they often fail to prepare traders for the long haul.
For beginners, the simulated model might be a stepping stone — but it shouldn’t be the destination.
For serious traders aiming for a lasting career, alignment with real capital firms — or hybrid models that combine the best of both worlds — offers a more promising future.
Ultimately, traders should ask themselves: Do I want to pass a challenge, or build a career?
