Prop Firms Offering More Than $1.5M in Funding

What “more than $1.5M in funding” actually means at a prop firm

In proprietary trading, the “funding” figure is not money wired into your bank account. It is the size of the simulated trading account a firm lets you control after you pass its evaluation, and the cap on how large that account can grow through the firm’s scaling plan. A page filtered to firms offering more than $1.5M is therefore listing programmes that let a single trader operate one large account, or a stacked set of accounts, totalling north of one and a half million dollars in buying power. The profit you generate on that simulated balance is real to you only through the profit split the firm pays out of its own funds.

The $1.5M level sits at the upper-mid tier of the industry. Most retail prop firms cap a single evaluation account somewhere between $100K and $400K, and reach larger totals through one of two routes: a built-in scaling plan that grows your balance as you hit consistent profit milestones, or a maximum-allocation rule that lets you run several funded accounts at once up to a combined ceiling. Crossing $1.5M almost always means you are looking at the latter, the scaling outcome, or both, rather than a fresh trader being handed a $1.5M account on day one.

Why the $1.5M threshold matters, and who it suits

The jump from a typical $200K–$500K cap to $1.5M-plus changes the maths in a specific way. On a 1% daily target, a $1.5M balance represents roughly $15,000 of simulated profit per good day, against perhaps $2,000–$5,000 at the smaller tiers. With an 80% split that is real, withdrawable money on a different scale. But the same multiplier applies to the rules: a 5% maximum drawdown on $1.5M is a $75,000 swing the firm is willing to absorb on simulated capital, and firms protect themselves accordingly.

This tier tends to suit:

• Traders who have already proven consistency at smaller account sizes and want their position sizing to match their edge rather than being throttled by a small balance.
• Systematic or lower-frequency traders whose per-trade conviction is high enough that a larger float is the binding constraint, not the strategy.
• Those willing to manage multiple accounts, since much of the funding above $1.5M is reached by combining several funded accounts under one allocation ceiling rather than a single monster account.

It is a poor fit for a beginner. A larger simulated balance does not loosen the drawdown percentages; it amplifies the dollar consequences of breaching them, and a single rule violation on a large account ends the arrangement just as fast as on a small one.

How $1.5M compares to lower and higher caps

Against the common $200K or $400K maximum, the firms in the list above are signalling that they are comfortable allocating serious simulated size to traders who keep performing, usually because their scaling plan or multi-account policy is generous. Compared with firms advertising $2M, $4M or higher headline figures, a $1.5M ceiling is often the more honest number: very large advertised maximums are frequently theoretical end-points that almost no trader reaches, gated behind many months of unbroken profitable trading. When you compare on this dimension, read past the headline:

• Is the $1.5M a single account or a combined cap across multiple accounts?
• Is it the starting allocation or only reachable through a multi-stage scaling plan with profit and time conditions?
• Do the drawdown rules tighten as the balance scales, and does the profit split improve, stay flat, or get reviewed at higher tiers?

Regulation, risk and what to check instead

It is important to be clear-eyed about what a large funding number does and does not guarantee. In most jurisdictions, retail prop firms are not licensed or supervised financial brokers. You are buying an evaluation service, not opening a regulated brokerage account, so there is typically no local-regulator authorisation, no investor-compensation scheme and no client-money segregation behind your $1.5M account. The balance is simulated and the payout is a contractual profit split paid from company funds. A bigger headline figure is a commercial promise, not a regulated guarantee.

Because the firm’s own rules and track record are the main safeguard, the things worth verifying at this tier are practical rather than regulatory:

• Payout history. At larger account sizes the firm is on the hook for larger payouts, so a documented, repeated record of paying funded traders matters more than any advertised ceiling.
• Drawdown clarity. Whether the maximum loss is calculated on starting balance, equity or a trailing high-water mark, the dollar value of that rule at $1.5M, and exactly what counts as a breach.
• Consistency and capping rules. Some firms limit how much of your total profit can come from a single day or trade, which materially affects how usable a large balance is.
• The scaling conditions required to actually reach $1.5M, and whether the firm can reduce your allocation after a losing period.

Frequently asked questions

Does “more than $1.5M in funding” mean I receive $1.5M in cash?

No. The figure is the size of the simulated or demo trading account you can control after passing the evaluation, including any growth through the firm’s scaling plan. You never receive the $1.5M itself. What you can receive is your agreed profit split, paid from the firm’s own funds, on the profit you generate against that balance.

Is $1.5M a single account or several accounts combined?

It varies by firm, which is why it is the first thing to check in the list above. Some programmes reach this level through one large scaled account, but many reach it by letting you hold multiple funded accounts up to a combined maximum allocation. The rules, drawdown limits and payout mechanics can differ between those two structures, so confirm which model a given firm uses before comparing.

Do I need to start at $1.5M, or can I scale up to it?

Most firms in this tier do not hand a new trader a $1.5M account immediately. You typically start at a smaller evaluation size and grow toward the maximum by hitting consistent profit milestones over time under a scaling plan. Check the specific profit targets, time requirements and any drawdown tightening that apply at each scaling stage.

Is a higher funding cap safer or better?

Not by itself. A larger ceiling raises your potential payout but also magnifies the dollar impact of the same percentage drawdown rules, and it says nothing about whether the firm actually pays. At this size, prioritise a firm’s payout track record, the clarity of its loss limits and the realism of its scaling conditions over the headline funding number.