The5ers vs FTMO: EA and Automated Trading Rules Compared in 2026

Quick answer: Can you use an EA at The5ers or FTMO?

Yes. Both firms publicly allow algorithmic trading or Expert Advisors, but neither gives automated traders a blank cheque. The practical question is not simply whether an EA is allowed; it is whether the EA’s ownership, execution pattern, server activity, strategy replication, risk profile and trading behavior comply with the specific program’s rules.

The5ers currently states that traders may use an EA provided it does not copy another person’s signals, perform tick scalping, latency arbitrage, reverse arbitrage, hedge arbitrage, high-frequency trading or use emulators. It also states that the trader must own the EA source code and that stop-loss orders must be visible on the platform. cite: The5ers EA FAQ, updated July 22, 2026.

FTMO also permits algorithmic trading and EAs, but its current guidance highlights a different practical risk: a third-party EA may be used by multiple traders, potentially creating the same strategy across registrations. FTMO also states that its servers have limits on orders, positions and server messages, and that an EA causing excessive platform activity may need adjustment. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ, accessed September 2026.

For an automated trader, that distinction matters. A robot can be technically profitable in a backtest and still be a poor fit for a particular prop-firm environment if its execution is too frequent, its source code cannot be demonstrated, its strategy is widely duplicated, or its risk behavior conflicts with the firm's rules.

The real problem: an EA can pass a backtest and still fail a prop-firm rule

Many traders approach an EA comparison from the wrong starting point. They ask, “Does this firm allow EAs?” A more useful question is, “Can this exact EA operate inside this firm's compliance and risk framework without changing the strategy's core edge?”

That matters because prop-firm evaluations are rule-constrained environments. A strategy has to survive drawdown limits, profit targets, execution restrictions, account allocation rules and sometimes consistency requirements. Automation removes some discretionary mistakes, but it does not remove the consequences of a rule breach.

The same issue appears at the buying stage. A lower evaluation fee does not automatically mean lower effective cost if the EA needs to be heavily modified, cannot trade during its strongest market window, or generates so many orders that it repeatedly approaches platform limits.

The right comparison therefore has several layers: EA permission, prohibited methods, source-code or ownership requirements, server activity, risk rules, evaluation structure, funded-stage payouts, scaling and the long-term fit between the firm's operating model and the trader's strategy.

The5ers vs FTMO EA rules at a glance

What EA strategies are currently allowed at The5ers?

The5ers' current public EA guidance is relatively specific. It says an EA can be used if it does not copy another person's signals, perform tick scalping, use latency arbitrage, reverse arbitrage, hedge arbitrage, high-frequency trading or emulators. The same guidance says the trader must own the source code and cannot use a stealth-mode stop-loss. cite: The5ers EA FAQ, July 22, 2026.

For an automated trader, this creates a useful pre-purchase checklist. “EA allowed” should never be treated as the only compliance test. A robot that opens a normal number of trades, uses ordinary market execution and follows conventional risk management is a different compliance case from a system that continuously modifies pending orders or attempts to exploit execution latency.

The ownership requirement is particularly important. If a trader is considering a purchased robot, rented algorithm, signal-derived EA or a system supplied by another person, the relevant question is not simply whether the file can be installed on MT5. The trader should be able to establish that the source-code ownership condition is satisfied.

This is one reason The5ers can be a useful subject for deeper EA education: the rule is concrete enough to change a buying decision. A trader should test the compliance characteristics of the robot before paying for an evaluation, not after an account has already been breached.

Related Read: https://propfirmsinsider.com/guides/prop-firms-that-allow-eas-in-2026-the5ers-ftmo-fundednext-fundingpips-ftm-compared

Does FTMO allow EAs and algorithmic trading?

Yes. FTMO's current public guidance explicitly allows discretionary trading, algorithmic trading and EAs, provided the strategy complies with its rules and is consistent with legitimate, replicable market behavior. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

FTMO's main automation warning is different from The5ers' source-code requirement. FTMO explains that a third-party EA can be used by multiple traders, which means the same strategy may appear across registrations. According to FTMO, that can create a risk of being denied an FTMO Account if the maximum capital allocation rule is exceeded. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

FTMO also says its platform servers have a 200-order-at-a-time limit and a 2,000 maximum-positions-per-day limitation in the cited environment, alongside limits on server messages such as order modifications. It may ask traders to adjust an EA if it causes server hyperactivity. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

For buyers, this means the automation question is partly technical and partly organizational. An EA may be valid in principle, yet the exact way it trades can still matter.

Why high-frequency execution and server activity matter

A prop firm's server is not simply a passive place where a robot is allowed to send unlimited instructions. Automated systems can generate orders, cancellations, stop-loss changes and take-profit modifications at a much higher rate than discretionary traders.

The5ers' current prohibited-practices guidance specifically addresses automated robots that generate excessive server requests through repeated opening, modification and closing of trades or pending orders. It gives high-frequency activity as an example of behavior that can overload infrastructure. cite: The5ers Prohibited Trading Practices.

FTMO similarly warns that an EA can become “hyperactive” and says traders may be asked to adjust the logic or parameters if the system generates excessive server activity. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

The practical lesson is simple: measure the EA's operational behavior, not just its profit curve. Before an evaluation, record average trades per day, maximum trades in a short period, pending-order activity, modification frequency and whether the EA repeatedly cancels and recreates orders.

1. ●Run the EA in a realistic demo environment for enough time to capture quiet and volatile sessions.
2. ●Count not only completed trades but also order modifications, cancellations and pending-order activity.
3. ●Test the highest-activity market conditions, because a robot that is calm in normal markets may become extremely active during volatility.
4. ●Compare the observed activity with the firm's current platform and prohibited-practice rules.
5. ●Keep a version-controlled copy of the EA and its parameters so a compliance issue can be investigated without changing the system blindly.

Why arbitrage and artificial profit patterns are a separate issue

Automation rules are not limited to execution speed. Both firms' public rules focus on whether a strategy represents genuine market trading rather than an attempt to manufacture an account result through structural loopholes.

The5ers explicitly lists latency arbitrage, reverse arbitrage and hedge arbitrage among prohibited EA behaviors. Its prohibited-practices guidance also discusses artificial distribution of profit across days and cross-account hedging. cite: The5ers EA FAQ; The5ers Prohibited Trading Practices.

FTMO's current forbidden-practice material similarly addresses strategies that are not reasonably replicable in actual markets and strategies designed to artificially distribute profit across days without proportionately distributing market risk. cite: FTMO Forbidden Trading Practices.

This distinction is useful because ordinary algorithmic trading is not the same thing as arbitrage. A systematic trend-following EA, for example, may open and close trades according to programmed indicators without attempting to exploit a latency difference between venues. Traders should therefore evaluate the mechanism behind an EA rather than treating every automated strategy as equivalent.

Drawdown is the first automation test

An EA does not understand a prop firm's drawdown rule unless its risk engine has been designed around it. This is where many otherwise attractive automated systems become difficult to use.

The5ers' current High Stakes program publishes a 5% maximum daily loss and 10% maximum loss for its listed challenge and funded stages, with unlimited time to complete the evaluation. It also requires three profitable days in the evaluation and uses three profitable days for scaling in the funded stage. cite: The5ers High Stakes program page, current September 2026 information.

FTMO's current Trading Objectives show different parameters by product. For the 2-Step Challenge, the published maximum daily loss is 5% of initial simulated capital and maximum loss is 10%; the 2-Step also has a four-trading-day minimum in the evaluation phases. The 1-Step has different daily-loss mechanics, including a 3% maximum daily loss amount and an end-of-day calculation framework described on the current Trading Objectives page. cite: FTMO Trading Objectives.

The key buying question is therefore not “Which firm has a 5% or 10% number?” It is “How does the rule interact with the EA's normal distribution of returns?” A robot that occasionally experiences a 4% intraday drawdown may be technically profitable over months but operationally unsuitable for a 5% daily-loss environment.

How to calculate EA risk before buying an evaluation

A useful pre-purchase exercise is to convert the EA's historical and stress-tested behavior into the prop firm's risk units.

1. ●Measure the EA's largest normal intraday drawdown.
2. ●Measure its worst historical drawdown and add a separate stress scenario for abnormal volatility.
3. ●Calculate the loss produced by the EA's largest expected losing sequence.
4. ●Check whether open equity, not just closed balance, can approach the firm's daily-loss threshold.
5. ●Add a safety buffer so the robot does not operate continuously at the exact edge of the firm's limit.

For example, if a strategy normally risks 0.5% per trade and can have six correlated positions, the nominal 3% exposure can become much larger when those positions are all driven by the same market factor. The EA's position count therefore matters less than its aggregate risk.

This is also where trader psychology enters the decision. Automation can reduce impulsive entries, but it can create a different psychological problem: watching a robot approach a drawdown threshold can tempt the owner to interfere manually. A robust prop-firm setup should define in advance when the EA will be paused, when risk parameters can be changed and when the system should simply be allowed to operate.

Which is more flexible for a trader who wants to automate?

There is no universal winner because “flexibility” depends on the EA. The5ers currently provides unusually explicit conditions around EA ownership and prohibited automated techniques, while FTMO explicitly permits algorithmic trading but puts particular emphasis on third-party strategy duplication, allocation and server activity.

For a trader who owns and controls the source code, The5ers' source-code requirement can be straightforward to evaluate. For a trader using a commercially supplied third-party robot, it becomes a key buying criterion because the current The5ers EA FAQ states that the trader must own the source code.

FTMO's current public guidance does not frame the issue in exactly the same way. Instead, it warns that a third-party EA can be shared by many traders and that identical strategies can create an allocation problem. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

In both cases, the safest process is to identify the EA's ownership, execution logic, trade frequency and account-duplication characteristics before starting an evaluation.

Which firm structure may suit a long-term automated trader?

A long-term EA trader usually needs three things: enough time for the strategy to express its edge, a drawdown framework the strategy can survive, and a payout/scaling structure that does not force unnecessary changes to the system.

The5ers' High Stakes program is notable in this context because its current rules give traders unlimited time to complete the two-step evaluation, while the program publishes 5% maximum daily loss, 10% maximum loss and scaling tied to 10% targets. The funded account can then be scaled according to the published table, with the current plan reaching up to $500,000. cite: The5ers High Stakes program page.

That time structure can matter for slower automated strategies. An EA does not necessarily need to increase risk simply because an evaluation clock is running. An unlimited evaluation period can allow the trader to prioritize rule compliance and strategy consistency instead of trying to compress a monthly or quarterly edge into a short evaluation window.

FTMO also offers structured evaluation and scaling paths, but the exact conditions depend on whether the trader chooses the 1-Step, 2-Step or its newer Futures products. FTMO's current public information describes different trading objectives and payout mechanics across those products. cite: FTMO Trading Objectives; FTMO Futures pages.

The right comparison is therefore program-to-program, not brand-to-brand.

How does The5ers High Stakes work for EA traders in 2026?

High Stakes is currently a two-step evaluation with unlimited time. The published rules show a 10% profit target in Step 1, a 5% target in Step 2, a 5% maximum daily loss, a 10% maximum loss and three profitable days in the evaluation. The funded stage uses three profitable days for scaling. cite: The5ers High Stakes program page.

The current program also allows holding trades overnight and over weekends. Holding open trades over high-impact news is allowed, but executing orders from two minutes before until two minutes after high-impact news is prohibited under the published rules. cite: The5ers High Stakes general rules, updated September 15, 2026.

That distinction is particularly important for an EA. A robot can be designed to keep an existing position open through news while disabling new entries during the restricted window. That is materially different from an EA whose strategy depends on opening positions immediately before a scheduled announcement.

High Stakes also currently offers funded-stage payout requests every 14 days. The current payout policy says payouts are available only after reaching the funded stage, with specific payout caps and minimum P&L thresholds for the listed $50K and $100K High Stakes accounts. cite: The5ers High Stakes payout policy, updated September 14, 2026.

For a systematic trader, payout design should be treated as part of risk management. A trader who withdraws every available dollar may leave less room for future drawdown; The5ers' current payout guidance notes that keeping profit in the account can increase the available maximum-drawdown amount.

Related Read: https://propfirmsinsider.com/guides/the5ers-programs-in-2026-bootcamp-high-stakes-hyper-growth-pro-growth-instant-funding-and-futures-explained

What about The5ers Bootcamp for automated strategies?

Bootcamp uses three challenge phases before the funded stage and currently has no time limit to complete the evaluation. The published program information states that news trading is allowed except for bracketing strategies, overnight and weekend holding is allowed, and the first payout can be requested 14 days after receiving a funded account, with subsequent requests every two weeks. cite: The5ers Bootcamp FAQ, updated September 6, 2026.

Bootcamp also has a specific account-structure condition: the current public information says a trader can have up to four active accounts in the listed configuration and that each account must have a different trading method. That can matter if an EA trader plans to run several accounts with essentially identical logic.

The current Bootcamp scaling plan publishes account growth linked to profit milestones, while The5ers' FAQ says the profit split starts at 50% and can scale toward 100% under the program's conditions. cite: The5ers Bootcamp scaling FAQ.

This is an example of why program selection should come after strategy classification. A trader should first define whether the EA is slow or fast, news-sensitive or news-neutral, single-account or multi-account, and low-drawdown or high-variance. Only then does it make sense to compare program mechanics.

How do FTMO 1-Step and 2-Step compare for EA traders?

FTMO currently offers different evaluation structures. The 1-Step is a single evaluation phase, while the 2-Step consists of Challenge and Verification. Their trading objectives differ, so an EA trader should not assume that a rule observed in one product applies to the other. cite: FTMO current product information and Trading Objectives.

For the 2-Step, FTMO currently publishes a 10% maximum loss and a 5% maximum daily loss in the Challenge and Verification. It also requires at least four trading days in those evaluation phases. The subsequent 2-Step FTMO Account does not have the same minimum-trading-day requirement. cite: FTMO Trading Objectives.

For the 1-Step, FTMO currently describes a 3% maximum daily loss amount and a 10% maximum loss, with the maximum-loss calculation using the highest end-of-day balance under the published methodology. cite: FTMO Trading Objectives.

An EA trader should therefore model the exact product selected rather than rely on a general “FTMO rules” label.

FTMO Futures: why it should be treated as a separate comparison

FTMO launched FTMO Futures in September 2026, so futures automation should not be folded into the same rule set as its established FX/CFD-style products. FTMO's current Futures information describes Growth and Pro evaluations, simulated futures trading and a 90/10 payout ratio at the Sim-Funded stage. cite: FTMO Futures launch announcement and product pages.

FTMO Futures explicitly states that algorithmic trading and EAs are allowed when trading is legitimate, consistent with proper risk management, aligned with real market conditions and not a forbidden practice. It also warns that a third-party EA can create duplicate strategies across registrations and notes an API limit on order activity. cite: FTMO Futures EA FAQ.

The newer product also has different payout timing and drawdown mechanics. Current public information says Growth and Pro have different daily-loss and payout conditions, with both using end-of-day trailing maximum drawdown at the Sim-Funded stage. cite: FTMO Futures product comparison.

For SEO and search intent, this distinction matters because “FTMO EA rules” and “FTMO Futures EA rules” are now separate questions. A trader searching for futures automation needs the Futures rulebook, not a recycled summary of the older evaluation products.

The six-question buying framework for EA traders

The best buying decision is the one that starts with the strategy and works backward to the program. Instead of asking which firm is “better,” ask whether the firm's rules are compatible with the robot you actually intend to run.

1. ●Do I own the EA and can I demonstrate that ownership if the program requires it?
2. ●Does the EA use any prohibited technique such as latency arbitrage, reverse arbitrage, hedge arbitrage, tick scalping or high-frequency behavior?
3. ●How many orders, modifications and server requests can it generate during its busiest periods?
4. ●Can the EA survive the exact daily-loss and maximum-loss mechanics of the selected program?
5. ●Does the program's news, overnight, weekend, inactivity and account-allocation framework fit the strategy?
6. ●Do the payout and scaling mechanics support the way I want to manage risk after funding?

This framework naturally puts The5ers and FTMO on the same decision matrix without pretending that one firm's structure is universally preferable.

Where The5ers may make sense for an automation-focused trader

Based on the current public rules, The5ers can be particularly relevant for traders who value a clearly defined scaling path, longer evaluation timeframes and a program structure that can accommodate a systematic strategy without forcing it into a short evaluation window.

High Stakes is the clearest example. Its unlimited evaluation period, published drawdown limits and 10%-target scaling framework give a slower EA room to operate without an artificial countdown to the end of the evaluation. Its funded payout cycle is also defined in advance, which can help a trader plan withdrawals around the strategy's expected volatility. cite: The5ers High Stakes rules and payout policy.

The5ers' broader program lineup also gives traders different structures to investigate rather than forcing every strategy into one evaluation model. High Stakes, Bootcamp and other current programs have different requirements, so the educational takeaway is to match the strategy to the program rather than assume one account type fits every EA.

There are trade-offs. The source-code ownership rule can be decisive for traders who rely on third-party robots. News-execution restrictions can matter for event-driven systems. Server-request and high-frequency restrictions can make some ultra-active algorithms unsuitable. These are not minor details; they belong in the pre-purchase decision.

For a trader who owns the algorithm, wants a longer runway and is building toward account growth rather than trying to maximize activity, these structural factors deserve careful attention.

Related Read: https://propfirmsinsider.com/guides/the5ers-ea-and-copy-trading-rules-in-2026-what-s-allowed-and-what-can-get-your-account-banned

Where FTMO may make sense for an automation-focused trader

FTMO's current framework is relevant to traders who want explicit support for algorithmic trading while working within documented server, allocation and replicability constraints. Its public guidance directly addresses EAs, third-party robots and server activity, which makes those considerations visible before an evaluation begins. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ.

FTMO's product range also means traders can compare different evaluation structures rather than treating the company as a single set of rules. The 1-Step, 2-Step and the newly launched Futures products have different objectives and payout frameworks.

The important limitation for an EA trader is that the same robot may not be equally suitable across all of them. A system designed around frequent entries, third-party logic or tight intraday risk may interact very differently with each product's rules.

That is why the final buying decision should be based on the strategy-program combination, not on brand familiarity alone.

EA compliance checklist before you pay for a prop-firm evaluation

• ●Source code: Do you own it, and can you document that if required?
• ●Signal copying: Does the EA replicate another trader's signals or decisions?
• ●Execution type: Does it depend on latency, arbitrage, ultra-fast fills or unusual market mechanics?
• ●Trade frequency: What is the average and peak number of orders per day?
• ●Order modifications: How often are stops, limits and pending orders changed?
• ●Risk concentration: Can correlated positions create much larger aggregate exposure than the per-trade risk suggests?
• ●Daily drawdown: What is the worst expected intraday equity decline under the chosen program?
• ●Maximum loss: What happens after the strategy experiences a prolonged losing streak?
• ●News: Does the robot need to enter during restricted news windows?
• ●Holding: Does it require overnight or weekend positions?
• ●Inactivity: Could the EA strategy naturally go more than 30 days without activity where an inactivity rule applies?
• ●Multiple accounts: Will the same EA be used on more than one account, and does the program restrict identical methods?
• ●Payouts: How often can profits be withdrawn, and do withdrawals affect the account's risk buffer?
• ●Scaling: What exact performance milestone triggers the next account level?
• ●Platform: Is the EA compatible with the exact platform, broker feed and execution environment supplied by the firm?

A practical decision tree

1. ●If you do not own the EA source code, check The5ers' current source-code rule before considering that program.
2. ●If the EA is third-party and widely distributed, check FTMO's allocation and duplicate-strategy guidance before assuming it can be scaled across accounts.
3. ●If the EA is high-frequency, test server activity before purchasing any evaluation.
4. ●If the EA is news-driven, compare the exact program's news-execution window rather than relying on a general firm-level statement.
5. ●If the EA has a slow edge, compare evaluation time limits and inactivity rules.
6. ●If the EA has a high variance profile, model its drawdown against the exact daily-loss and maximum-loss calculation.
7. ●If the main objective is long-term account growth, compare scaling and payout mechanics after confirming the strategy is compliant.

Trader psychology: why automation does not remove evaluation pressure

Automation can reduce discretionary errors, but it does not eliminate evaluation pressure. The pressure simply changes form. Instead of worrying about whether to enter a trade, the trader may worry about whether to intervene in a losing sequence, change parameters, or shut the EA down before a drawdown rule is reached.

A well-designed prop-firm automation plan therefore separates strategy decisions from emotional decisions. The EA should have predefined risk limits, a maximum exposure level and clear shutdown conditions. Manual intervention should be governed by a written process rather than by a single losing day.

This matters for scaling too. The5ers' current High Stakes scaling plan is tied to 10% performance milestones. A trader who treats every milestone as a reason to increase EA risk may change the statistical characteristics of the strategy precisely when consistency becomes more important. cite: The5ers High Stakes scaling plan.

The same principle applies to FTMO. Scaling or improved reward conditions should not be treated as a signal to increase risk. The evaluation is still about rule-compliant performance, not about reaching the next account size as quickly as possible.

Payouts and scaling: the part EA traders often overlook

A prop-firm comparison becomes much more useful when payout mechanics are treated as part of strategy design. An EA that produces smooth, modest returns may be compatible with frequent withdrawals, while a high-variance EA may need profits left in the account to maintain a larger risk buffer.

The5ers currently states that funded payouts can be requested on a biweekly basis in relevant programs and that keeping profits in the account can increase the available drawdown amount. Its High Stakes payout policy also publishes specific caps and minimum P&L requirements for certain account sizes. cite: The5ers payout policy, September 2026.

The5ers' published profit-split information also shows that different programs begin at different payout ratios and can scale upward according to their respective plans. High Stakes currently starts at 80% and can scale to 100% under the published plan; other programs have different starting ratios and milestones. cite: The5ers profit-split FAQ, June 2026.

FTMO likewise uses product-specific reward structures. Current public information states that 2-Step rewards begin at 80% and can rise to 90% under its Scaling Plan, while the 1-Step product has a 90% reward structure. FTMO Futures uses its own 90/10 framework and separate payout cycles. cite: FTMO withdrawal FAQ; FTMO Futures product pages.

These figures should not be read as an income projection. They simply show why payout design belongs in the comparison. The relevant question is how much profit the strategy can withdraw without damaging the risk profile required to keep trading.

Common EA mistakes that can turn a valid strategy into a poor prop-firm fit

• ●Assuming “EA allowed” means every EA is allowed.
• ●Ignoring source-code ownership requirements.
• ●Testing only profitability and not server activity.
• ●Using the same third-party EA across many registrations without checking allocation rules.
• ●Treating a 5% daily-loss limit as if it were simply a 5% balance loss rather than modeling the firm's equity calculation.
• ●Allowing an EA to open correlated positions that create hidden concentration risk.
• ●Failing to disable news entries when the program restricts execution around high-impact announcements.
• ●Increasing lot size after funding because the account appears larger.
• ●Withdrawing every available profit without considering the remaining drawdown buffer.
• ●Assuming a rule from one program applies to another program at the same firm.
• ●Relying on an old review or forum post instead of the firm's current official rules.

Summary: The5ers vs FTMO for automated trading

The central lesson is that EA compatibility is a strategy-to-program question, not a simple yes-or-no feature.

The5ers currently allows EAs but sets explicit conditions around source-code ownership, prohibited automation techniques, visible stop-losses and server activity. Its current High Stakes program adds an unlimited evaluation period, defined drawdown rules, news-execution restrictions, funded-stage biweekly payout requests and a published scaling pathway. Those features can be especially relevant to traders who want to operate a systematic strategy over a longer development cycle. cite: The5ers EA FAQ; High Stakes rules; payout policy.

FTMO also permits EAs and algorithmic trading, while emphasizing legitimate and replicable strategies, third-party EA duplication, capital allocation and platform/server limits. Its 1-Step, 2-Step and newly launched Futures products should be evaluated separately because their trading objectives and payout mechanics differ. cite: FTMO strategy FAQ; Trading Objectives; FTMO Futures.

For the trader, the practical buying decision comes down to compatibility. If the EA's ownership, execution style, risk distribution and trading frequency fit the rules, the program becomes a viable candidate for further comparison. If the strategy depends on prohibited techniques, excessive activity or rule-sensitive news execution, changing firms may not solve the underlying problem; the strategy itself may need to be redesigned.

A useful final test is simple: can the EA produce its expected returns while remaining comfortably inside the firm's rules, without relying on loopholes, unusually aggressive risk or last-minute intervention? If the answer is yes, the comparison can move on to cost, payouts, scaling and long-term account growth.

For more prop firm comparisons, EA rule guides, scaling analysis, payout explainers and trader education, explore Prop Firm Insider. The most useful comparison is the one that matches a trader's actual strategy, risk tolerance and long-term account goals.

Continue