Prop Firm Leverage Comparison 2026: Who Still Offers 1:100+ and What Happened to FTMO Leverage?

Leverage is one of the first numbers traders notice when comparing prop firms. A firm advertising 1:100, 1:200, or even higher can appear much more attractive than one offering 1:30.

But the headline number does not tell the whole story.

In 2026, several major prop firms still publish 1:100 forex leverage, while some offer higher headline leverage under tiered or dynamic systems. At the same time, leverage on metals, indices, commodities, crypto, and larger positions can be dramatically lower.

There is also an important misconception surrounding FTMO.

FTMO has not removed 1:100 leverage from its Standard account. Its current public specifications still list up to 1:100 for Standard accounts, while Swing accounts are capped at up to 1:30.

The more useful question is therefore not simply:

“Which prop firm has the highest leverage?”

It is:

“Which prop firm gives my trading strategy enough usable leverage without compromising drawdown, margin, consistency, and long-term account growth?”

That distinction matters because a trader can have 1:500 leverage and still have only a small amount of actual risk capacity before hitting a firm’s maximum-loss rule.

This 2026 comparison looks at The5ers first, then FTMO, FundedNext, and FundingPips, with a focus on forex leverage, asset-specific restrictions, dynamic leverage, drawdown, scaling, and trader suitability.

What Is Prop Firm Leverage in 2026, and Why Does 1:100 Matter?

Prop firm leverage determines how much market exposure can be controlled relative to the margin required, but it does not increase the account’s permitted drawdown. A 1:100 account can therefore provide more margin efficiency without giving the trader permission to risk 100 times more money.

This is the most important concept to understand before comparing firms.

What does 1:100 leverage actually mean for a prop firm trader?

At 1:100 leverage, a trader generally needs approximately 1% of the position’s notional value as margin, subject to the instrument’s exact contract specifications.

For a simplified example, assume a trader wants to control a $100,000 forex position.

At:

• ●1:100 leverage: approximately $1,000 margin
• ●1:50 leverage: approximately $2,000 margin
• ●1:30 leverage: approximately $3,333 margin
• ●1:10 leverage: approximately $10,000 margin

This does not mean the trader can lose only the margin.

The position’s market value still determines the profit or loss.

If a $100,000 position moves 1% against the trader, the gross market loss is approximately $1,000 before costs.

That is why leverage should be viewed primarily as margin capacity, not as a recommended risk level.

The distinction becomes particularly important in prop trading because the account is governed by predefined risk limits.

A $100,000 evaluation account might have a maximum-loss limit of 10%.

That means the account can potentially fail after losing $10,000, regardless of whether the account offers 1:30 or 1:100 leverage.

Leverage changes how much margin is required to establish a position.

It does not change the firm’s maximum-loss threshold.

FundedNext’s current educational material makes the same basic point: leverage allows traders to control larger positions with less required capital, but larger positions also magnify the financial consequences of price movements.

Is higher leverage better, or do drawdown limits matter more than the headline ratio?

For most prop traders, drawdown is more important than maximum leverage.

Consider two hypothetical $100,000 accounts.

Account A requires less margin for the same position.

But both traders still have the same $10,000 maximum-loss allowance.

If the trader normally risks only 0.25% per trade, 1:30 may already provide plenty of margin.

If the strategy uses several simultaneous positions, requires substantial margin, or relies on tight stops and larger notional exposure, 1:100 can provide more operational flexibility.

That is the real advantage.

High leverage is useful when margin requirements would otherwise constrain a legitimate trading strategy.

It is not inherently useful when a trader simply wants to take larger risks.

The5ers Leverage in 2026: Where Does It Still Offer 1:100?

The5ers still publishes 1:100 forex leverage on its High Stakes program in 2026. Its current High Stakes specification lists 1:100 for forex, with lower effective leverage or higher margin requirements for metals, indices, commodities, and crypto.

This makes The5ers particularly relevant to a 2026 leverage comparison.

But traders should not assume that every The5ers program uses the same leverage.

The firm’s different evaluation models have different trading conditions.

Does The5ers still offer 1:100 leverage on forex, and which assets have lower limits?

The current High Stakes leverage structure is:

The5ers’ official leverage FAQ was updated in June 2026 and confirms these figures. It also notes a temporary restriction affecting Oil on certain $50K and $100K funded High Stakes accounts, where leverage is reduced to 1:5 because of market-volatility considerations.

That last point illustrates why traders should never compare prop firms using the forex leverage number alone.

A trader who mainly trades EUR/USD may care deeply about 1:100.

A gold trader needs to look at the metals requirement.

An oil trader needs to examine the current Oil condition.

A crypto trader needs to consider the 1:2 limit.

The same account can therefore provide very different practical leverage depending on the instrument.

The current High Stakes program also permits overnight and weekend holding, while holding open trades through news is allowed subject to a restriction on executing orders around high-impact news. The published program lists 1:100 leverage and scaling up to $500,000.

This creates a useful distinction:

The5ers offers high forex leverage, but it does not use a single high-leverage number across every market.

That is normal in professional trading.

How do The5ers leverage, drawdown rules, and scaling plans work together for long-term account growth?

Leverage becomes more meaningful when it is considered alongside the firm’s scaling framework.

The current High Stakes program advertises scaling on each 10% target and a pathway up to $500,000, with profit-share progression from 80% toward 100% at higher published levels.

That means a trader evaluating The5ers should think beyond:

“Can I open a large position?”

The more useful questions are:

• ●Can the strategy operate comfortably inside the drawdown limits?
• ●Does the trader need 1:100, or would 1:30 be sufficient?
• ●How does position size change as the account scales?
• ●Does the strategy remain viable at larger balances?
• ●Does the trader need overnight holding?
• ●Are the relevant instruments subject to lower leverage?
• ●Do current program rules change between evaluation and funded stages?

The5ers also offers programs where leverage is substantially lower.

Its current Growth/Hyper Growth program lists 1:30 leverage, alongside a 10% evaluation target, 6% stop-out level, 3% daily loss, unlimited evaluation time, and account-growth pathways that can reach much larger nominal balances.

Its Bootcamp program also uses 1:30 leverage across accounts. The current Bootcamp documentation says the program has three challenge phases, unlimited evaluation time, overnight and weekend holding, and a 3% daily pause on funded accounts.

This is important for The5ers comparisons.

A trader should not conclude:

“The5ers = 1:100 leverage.”

The more accurate statement is:

“The5ers has program-specific leverage, with High Stakes currently offering 1:100 forex leverage while Growth and Bootcamp use 1:30.”

There is also a current limited-time Summer Plan that lists 1:100 leverage across its $100K 1-Step and 2-Step structures. Because that is a specific limited-time product rather than the standard specification for every The5ers program, it should be treated separately when comparing leverage.

This program diversity can be useful for traders because leverage is not the only design variable.

The trader can instead choose a program based on the combination of:

• ●leverage;
• ●drawdown;
• ●evaluation structure;
• ●time flexibility;
• ●payout conditions;
• ●consistency requirements;
• ●scaling;
• ●preferred instruments.

For a deeper comparison of The5ers programs and which structure may suit different trading styles, see our guide:

The5ers Bootcamp vs Hyper Growth vs Pro Growth vs High Stakes: Which Program Fits Your Trading Style in 2026?

FTMO Leverage in 2026: Did FTMO Really Cut Leverage Below 1:100?

No, not for its Standard account. FTMO’s current public account specification still lists leverage of up to 1:100 on Standard accounts, while its Swing account uses up to 1:30.

What has changed over time is the leverage available on individual instruments.

That is why some traders may perceive FTMO leverage as having been reduced even though the headline Standard-account maximum remains 1:100.

What leverage does FTMO offer on Standard and Swing accounts in 2026?

FTMO currently states:

• ●Standard account: up to 1:100
• ●Swing account: up to 1:30

The firm also makes clear that the leverage applies to fictitious capital in its simulated trading environment.

This is an important clarification.

The account’s displayed balance should not be interpreted as a conventional broker deposit where FTMO is simply lending the trader 100 times their own cash.

FTMO describes its trading environment as simulated.

The leverage figure instead determines the margin conditions applied to the simulated trading account.

The Swing account’s lower leverage is designed around a different trading profile.

Lower leverage can be more relevant for traders who hold positions for several days or weeks because margin requirements and risk management can be structured differently.

FTMO’s historical educational material describes the Normal/Standard account as having 1:100 forex leverage and the Swing account as having 1:30 forex leverage, with additional reductions on other asset classes.

Which FTMO instruments have lower leverage, and how have 2026 trading-condition updates changed margin requirements?

The headline 1:100 figure applies to the account’s maximum leverage, not every instrument.

FTMO adjusts individual instruments according to their characteristics and market conditions.

For example, in February 2026, FTMO increased leverage on several XAU pairs.

The February update changed:

The update was effective February 1, 2026.

Later in May 2026, FTMO announced further leverage changes affecting selected currency pairs and other instruments.

For example, several NZD-related pairs moved from 1:67 to 1:100 on Standard accounts, while Swing leverage increased from 1:20 to 1:30. Silver and certain commodity instruments also received increases.

This is the opposite of a blanket leverage cut.

It shows why traders should be cautious when reading older comparisons.

FTMO’s maximum Standard leverage remains 1:100, while individual instrument conditions can change over time.

A trader comparing FTMO in 2026 should therefore check the instrument specification directly in the trading platform.

FTMO’s current FAQ specifically instructs traders to use the instrument specification in MetaTrader’s Market Watch to see the applicable conditions.

That is a more reliable approach than relying on a static article listing every instrument.

Which Prop Firms Still Offer 1:100+ Leverage in 2026?

1:100 forex leverage remains available from several active prop firms in 2026, including The5ers, FTMO, FundedNext, and FundingPips on relevant account models. However, FundingPips also illustrates why a “1:100+” comparison can become misleading when firms use dynamic or tiered leverage.

All four firms have current public 2026 documentation or active program pages, so they can be treated as active entities for this comparison based on available public information.

The5ers vs FTMO vs FundedNext vs FundingPips: who currently offers 1:100 forex leverage?

Here is a practical snapshot based on current published information:

The5ers’ High Stakes page currently lists 1:100 leverage, while its Growth and Bootcamp programs are lower at 1:30.

FTMO’s current specification lists up to 1:100 for Standard accounts and up to 1:30 for Swing accounts.

FundedNext’s current educational page specifically uses its Stellar Account as an example of 1:100 forex leverage.

FundingPips currently lists 1:100 forex leverage on its 2-Step Standard, 2-Step Flex, and 2-Step Pro documentation.

But there is an important caveat.

The account model matters.

FundingPips, for example, currently has separate Standard and Swap-Free leverage structures.

Its 2-Step Standard documentation lists:

• ●Forex: 1:100
• ●Metals: 1:30
• ●Energies: 1:10
• ●Indices: 1:20
• ●Crypto: 1:2

The Swap-Free version uses lower leverage on these markets.

That means a comparison saying “FundingPips offers 1:100 leverage” is technically correct for the specified Standard forex setup, but incomplete without the asset and account context.

Are any prop firms offering leverage above 1:100, and does higher leverage actually improve trading flexibility?

Yes.

FundingPips provides one of the clearest examples of a prop firm using leverage above 1:100 under a tiered structure.

Its current Prime Account documentation lists leverage as high as 1:2000 for smaller FX positions, with leverage progressively declining as position size increases.

For FX majors, the published Prime tiers include:

FundingPips says the margin is cumulative, meaning the higher leverage applies only to the portion of volume within each tier rather than converting the entire position to the lowest applicable leverage.

This is an important development in the 2026 prop-firm market.

The question is no longer simply:

“Does the firm offer 1:100?”

It may be:

“How does leverage change as my position size grows?”

A trader with a very small FX position could theoretically receive a much higher leverage ratio than 1:100.

But a trader placing a large position may quickly enter lower leverage tiers.

This is closer to institutional-style margin management than a single fixed 1:100 account.

FundingPips also currently applies temporary dynamic leverage to certain metals, energies, and indices on Master Accounts. Its documentation says the system is designed to reduce leverage as position size grows.

That approach reinforces an important risk principle:

Higher leverage is most useful when it improves margin efficiency, not when it encourages oversized positions.

Leverage vs Drawdown: Which Prop Firm Gives Traders More Usable Risk Capacity?

Usable risk capacity comes from the interaction between leverage, drawdown, position sizing, margin requirements, and trading rules—not from leverage alone.

A 1:100 account with a strict daily loss limit can be less forgiving than a 1:30 account with a trading strategy that naturally uses smaller positions.

How do 1:100 leverage and a 5% or 10% maximum-loss rule interact?

Consider a hypothetical $100,000 account.

If the maximum loss is 10%, the trader has a $10,000 account-level loss boundary.

Now compare two leverage levels.

At 1:100, a $100,000 forex position may require approximately $1,000 of margin.

At 1:30, it may require approximately $3,333.

But neither number changes the $10,000 maximum-loss limit.

If the trader opens a $500,000 notional position, the leverage requirement may make the trade technically possible.

But a 1% move against the position could represent approximately $5,000 of gross loss before costs.

A 2% move could represent approximately $10,000.

The account could therefore approach its maximum-loss boundary very quickly.

This is why high leverage can be both useful and dangerous.

The useful part is:

Less margin is required to establish the same legitimate position.

The dangerous interpretation is:

“I can safely trade a much larger position.”

The two statements are not equivalent.

A trader should calculate risk from the stop-loss and position size first.

Leverage should then be checked to ensure the position can actually be opened and maintained.

A practical order of operations is:

1. ●Decide how much of the account can be risked.
2. ●Define the stop-loss.
3. ●Calculate position size.
4. ●Check margin requirements.
5. ●Confirm that multiple positions do not create excessive exposure.
6. ●Verify that the trade remains inside daily and maximum-loss rules.

This reverses the common beginner approach of starting with maximum leverage and working backward.

Should traders choose leverage based on scalping, swing trading, news trading, or position size?

Yes, trading style matters.

A scalper who enters and exits quickly may care about:

• ●margin efficiency;
• ●spread;
• ●execution;
• ●position size;
• ●maximum simultaneous exposure.

A swing trader may care more about:

• ●overnight holding;
• ●weekend rules;
• ●swap;
• ●lower effective leverage;
• ●gap risk.

A news trader may care about:

• ●execution restrictions;
• ●spread widening;
• ●instrument leverage;
• ●news windows;
• ●slippage.

A position trader may care less about maximum leverage because the strategy might use relatively small positions and wide stops.

This is one reason The5ers’ program-specific approach matters.

High Stakes currently offers 1:100 forex leverage, overnight and weekend holding, and scaling up to $500,000.

Growth uses 1:30 but offers unlimited evaluation time and an account-growth structure that can reach a much larger nominal account pathway.

Bootcamp also uses 1:30, with unlimited time to complete the challenge and a separate multi-stage development structure.

Therefore, a trader should not automatically select High Stakes simply because 1:100 is available.

A trader who does not need that leverage may value another program’s structure more.

This is especially relevant to trader psychology.

Higher leverage can create the temptation to increase lot sizes simply because the platform permits it.

Lower leverage can sometimes impose a useful operational constraint.

Neither is universally better.

The appropriate choice depends on the strategy.

Is 1:100 Leverage Still the Best Choice for Prop Firm Traders in 2026?

1:100 remains a useful leverage level for many forex traders, but it should not be treated as the ideal leverage for every strategy. For many traders, the quality of the drawdown structure, scaling system, payout rules, and instrument conditions matters more.

The 2026 market increasingly demonstrates why.

The5ers offers 1:100 on High Stakes forex but 1:30 on Growth and Bootcamp.

FTMO offers up to 1:100 on Standard but 1:30 on Swing.

FundingPips offers 1:100 on standard forex models but uses dynamic leverage on several other asset classes and can provide much higher leverage on smaller Prime FX positions.

FundedNext’s current materials also cite 1:100 for its Stellar account.

There is therefore no shortage of 1:100 options.

The real differentiator is how that leverage interacts with the rest of the trading model.

When does high leverage help, and when can it increase the risk of hitting daily loss limits?

High leverage helps when margin is the limiting factor.

For example, a trader might have a carefully controlled strategy that uses:

• ●small percentage risk;
• ●tight stops;
• ●several simultaneous positions;
• ●moderate total exposure.

At 1:30, the combined margin requirement might become restrictive.

At 1:100, the same risk-controlled strategy could operate more comfortably.

But high leverage becomes dangerous when it changes trader behavior.

The sequence can look like this:

Higher leverage → larger allowable position → larger P/L swings → greater emotional pressure → increased chance of daily-loss violation.

This is why professional risk management starts with the amount that can be lost, not the amount that can be borrowed or margined.

A trader risking 0.5% on a trade can have a 1:100 account and still operate conservatively.

Another trader with 1:500 leverage can lose an account very quickly if position sizing is uncontrolled.

The leverage number does not determine the trader’s discipline.

What should traders compare beyond leverage: spreads, drawdown, consistency rules, scaling, payouts, and account growth?

A proper prop-firm comparison should treat leverage as only one line in a much larger checklist.

Here is a practical 2026 framework:

This broader framework is particularly relevant to The5ers.

The firm’s current programs offer materially different combinations of leverage and account-development structures.

High Stakes combines 1:100 forex leverage with a published scaling pathway up to $500,000.

Growth uses 1:30 leverage but advertises unlimited evaluation time and an account-growth pathway that can reach up to $4 million under its published structure.

Bootcamp uses 1:30 and a three-stage evaluation with a funded payout cycle beginning 14 days after funded activation and continuing every two weeks, subject to its rules.

These differences show why “highest leverage” is not a sufficient definition of value.

A trader interested in long-term account growth may care more about how the account can scale.

A trader focused on short-term forex execution may care more about margin efficiency.

A trader holding positions over several days may care more about overnight and weekend conditions.

A trader using gold may care more about metals leverage than forex leverage.

A trader trading crypto may find that 1:2 is the relevant number, even if the account headline says 1:100.

Internal-link opportunity: Prop Firm Insider can connect this section to dedicated guides on prop firm drawdown rules, The5ers scaling plans, prop firm payout comparisons, and The5ers vs FTMO account rules.

The 2026 Prop Firm Leverage Comparison: What the Numbers Really Show

The current market makes one thing clear:

1:100 forex leverage is still widely available in 2026.

The5ers High Stakes currently lists 1:100 for forex. FTMO Standard still lists up to 1:100. FundedNext’s current material cites 1:100 for Stellar. FundingPips’ standard models also list 1:100 forex leverage.

The more interesting development is how firms are moving toward asset-specific and position-size-specific leverage.

FundingPips provides a particularly clear example with its Prime tier system, where smaller positions can receive substantially higher leverage but larger positions move into lower leverage tiers.

FTMO’s 2026 trading updates also show that individual instruments can have their leverage changed without changing the headline maximum leverage of the account.

The5ers follows a similar asset-specific approach.

Its High Stakes program offers 1:100 forex leverage but much lower leverage for metals, indices, commodities, and crypto.

That means the phrase “1:100 prop firm” is becoming less useful as a standalone comparison.

A better comparison is:

1:100 for what, on which account, for which instrument, at what position size, and under which drawdown rules?

That is the information a trader actually needs.

Final Takeaway

The 2026 prop-firm leverage market is not really a race toward one universally higher number.

The5ers still offers 1:100 forex leverage on High Stakes. FTMO Standard still offers up to 1:100. FundedNext cites 1:100 for Stellar, while FundingPips offers 1:100 on standard forex models and substantially higher tiered leverage for smaller Prime FX positions.

The bigger change is the increasing importance of program-specific, instrument-specific, and position-size-specific leverage.

For The5ers, the choice is particularly clear:

• ●High Stakes currently provides 1:100 forex leverage.
• ●Growth uses 1:30.
• ●Bootcamp uses 1:30.
• ●Different programs have different evaluation, drawdown, payout, and scaling structures.

That makes leverage only one part of the decision.

A trader focused on long-term account development should examine how leverage interacts with drawdown, scaling, payout progression, consistency requirements, and trading psychology.

A trader focused on short-term execution should examine margin efficiency, instrument conditions, spreads, and position limits.

And a trader comparing FTMO should not assume that the firm has simply “cut leverage below 1:100.” Its current Standard account still lists up to 1:100, while individual instruments have undergone several leverage changes during 2026.

The best leverage is therefore not necessarily the highest number.

It is the leverage that gives a trader enough margin flexibility to execute a well-defined strategy without encouraging excessive exposure or making the firm’s drawdown limits harder to respect.

For more prop firm comparisons, scaling guides, and trader education, explore Prop Firm Insider.

Continue