Category: Prop Firm Trading | Last Updated: April 2026

Prop firm evaluations are the one scenario where Vector clients can reasonably consider adjusting contract size beyond the default — because during an evaluation, the trade-off is between time spent and the cost of another eval, not between winning and losing real funded capital. This article covers how clients commonly approach the eval phase and what you should keep in mind before adjusting anything.

Important Disclaimer Before You Read Further

Vector Algorithmics does not work with, represent, or partner with any prop firm. We have experience running our strategies across many of the major firms, but helping you choose a firm, validating a firm's rules, or guaranteeing any specific outcome inside a firm's evaluation is not part of our service.

• Read your prop firm's rules in full before you start. Drawdown types (EOD, trailing, static), daily loss limits, position sizing caps, news trading rules, and hedging rules all vary across firms — and they change.
• No guarantees. Our prop-firm-related service is provided as-is. Your evaluation outcome depends on your chosen strategy, sizing, the firm's rules, and market conditions during your eval window.

With that said, here's how clients typically approach the eval phase.

Two Approaches: Aggressive vs. Conservative

There is no single "right" way to approach an evaluation. It comes down to how much you want to spend on evals versus how much time you're willing to trade for that money.

The Aggressive Approach

• Increase contract size beyond the default to compress the time to a pass
• Accept that a pass attempt may take only a handful of sessions — but also accept that failing an eval and buying a fresh one is part of the cost
• Better suited for clients who are in a hurry, or who budget for multiple eval attempts as part of getting to a funded account

The Conservative Approach

• Run default contract sizes as delivered
• Expect the eval to take several weeks or more to clear
• Lower cost per attempt, but longer time spent in the eval phase — during which you're not competing for any payouts yet

Both approaches are legitimate. Many Vector clients specifically choose the aggressive route because the eval phase isn't generating payouts regardless, so speeding through it can be a better use of time. Others prefer to keep costs down and let the default settings do their work. It's your call.

Adjusting Contract Size for Evaluations

The evaluation is the one scenario where adjusting contract size beyond the defaults is commonly accepted within the Vector community — because the risk, while higher per trade, is capped at the cost of another eval rather than real funded capital.

A few things to keep in mind before you change sizing:

• Stay within your firm's position sizing rules. Many firms cap contracts per trade for eval accounts.
• Respect the daily loss limit. Over-leverage is the fastest way to fail an eval — one bad trade can burn through a too-generous sizing choice before the day is over.
• Know your drawdown type. Trailing drawdown and EOD drawdown behave differently; sizing that's fine for one can blow through the other.

Our general rule of thumb: if you're going to increase size, do it deliberately, knowing the math of the firm's rules — not as an emotional reaction during a bad session.

Strategy Selection for Evaluations

Instead of us recommending any specific strategy for evaluations (which would quickly become outdated as we release new versions), the best source is the Vector Discord community. Clients who are actively running evals tend to share what's been working for them in current market conditions — and that collective signal is typically more useful than any static KB recommendation.

Things to look at when deciding: - Which strategies clients are actively using to pass current evals - How they're sizing those strategies - Any firm-specific rule changes that are affecting approach

Historical Note: BNB (BreadNButter) and Apex Evaluations

Clients coming back to Vector after some time away often ask about using BNB for Apex evaluations. Here's the current status:

We used to recommend BNB for Apex evals during a period when Apex permitted hedging on evaluation accounts (hedging was strictly prohibited only on PA / funded accounts). Running BNB in both directions and closing out whichever leg didn't win was a common, effective approach.

Apex has since changed the rules and that hedging approach is no longer allowed on eval accounts. That doesn't mean BNB is off the table — many clients still use it, but on a single leg: picking either buy or sell for the day and accepting a pass/fail outcome (either the eval passes that day, or they move on to a new eval the following day).

If you're considering BNB for an Apex eval (or any firm), re-check that firm's current rules before running it — and check Discord for what other clients are currently doing.

Bottom Line

The eval phase is the one legitimate exception where Vector clients commonly adjust sizing beyond the defaults, because the worst-case cost is another eval — not funded capital. Choose the approach (aggressive or conservative) that fits your timeline and budget, stay strictly within your prop firm's rules, and lean on the Discord community for what's currently working.

Vector does not represent any prop firm and does not guarantee evaluation outcomes. Open a support ticket if you have questions about running strategies in general, but firm-specific rule interpretations should always come from the firm itself.