Topstep Labs Adds a $6K Challenge: How It Compares With the $3K and $1.5K Versions

Topstep Labs has launched a new $6K Challenge, expanding its experimental fixed-payout lineup alongside the existing $3K and $1.5K Challenges.

The new $6K version is Topstep Labs Drop #005 and launched in September 2026. Like the earlier challenge products, it uses a two-round structure: traders must hit the profit target once in the Challenge Round and then repeat the same target in the Payout Round. Passing the second round produces a fixed payout, after which the account closes.

The structure is notably different from Topstep’s normal Trading Combine-to-Express-Funded-Account path. These Labs challenges do not lead to an ongoing funded account on their own. Instead, they operate more like fixed-reward trading contests with defined targets, fixed drawdowns, no resets and a one-time payout at the end.

Topstep says all three challenges use a static, non-trailing drawdown, and neither the Challenge Round nor the Payout Round has a Daily Loss Limit or consistency requirement. The $1.5K Challenge is capped at two micros, while both the $3K and $6K Challenges allow up to 10 micros or one mini.

The $6K Challenge is structurally familiar — but not simply twice the $3K version

On the surface, the $6K Challenge looks like a doubled $3K Challenge.

The profit target rises from $3,000 to $6,000. The maximum loss rises from $1,000 to $2,000. The fixed payout doubles from $3,000 to $6,000. The 3:1 target-to-loss relationship stays exactly the same.

But one important variable does not double: maximum contract size.

Both the $3K and $6K Challenges are capped at 10 micros or one mini.

That means the $6K Challenge gives traders twice the loss allowance and twice the target, but no additional maximum position size.

That has practical consequences.

A trader cannot simply take the same approach used in the $3K Challenge and double position size to reach the $6K target at the same pace. In that sense, the $6K version may demand either more favorable price movement, more trades, more trading days, or some combination of the three.

The fee structure changes sharply at $6K

The pricing curve is also not linear.

The $1.5K Challenge costs $39, the $3K Challenge costs $49, and the $6K Challenge costs $149.

The $3K Challenge has the lowest entry fee relative to its fixed payout, while the $6K version carries a significantly higher upfront cost than the $3K account.

That does not by itself say anything about which structure a trader should choose, but it does mean the $6K product is not simply a proportional extension of the smaller challenge.

Two rounds means the advertised target is only half the required journey

Another important detail is that the target has to be hit twice.

A trader completing the $6K Challenge must first produce $6,000 in the Challenge Round and then produce another $6,000 in the Payout Round before receiving the fixed $6,000 payout.

The second-round profits do not become an account balance that remains with the trader. Topstep describes the payout as a fixed reward for completing the challenge, and the account closes afterward.

That makes these products fundamentally different from traditional funded-account structures where traders continue operating the account after a withdrawal.

Static drawdown changes the risk profile

One of the more trader-friendly structural features is the static drawdown.

With a static maximum loss, the loss threshold does not trail upward as profits accumulate. Topstep explains that distinction elsewhere in the Labs documentation by contrasting static drawdown with its normal end-of-day trailing structure.

For the three challenges:

• $1.5K Challenge: $500 static max loss
• $3K Challenge: $1,000 static max loss
• $6K Challenge: $2,000 static max loss

Because the floor does not rise with profits, a trader who builds cushion above the starting point effectively gains more room between the current account balance and the failure threshold.

That becomes increasingly meaningful later in a successful round.

No Daily Loss Limit does not mean unlimited risk

None of the three Challenges uses a Daily Loss Limit.

That creates more flexibility than an account where a trader may be forced flat after reaching a fixed intraday loss threshold. But the static maximum loss still functions as the hard failure boundary.

For the $6K Challenge, a $2,000 maximum loss means a trader who loses too much too quickly can still end the account well before taking full advantage of the 90-day lifespan.

The absence of a DLL therefore shifts more responsibility to the trader’s own risk limits.

A trader using the full $2,000 as a practical daily risk budget would only need one bad session to end the challenge. A more conservative approach would divide that total loss allowance across multiple attempts rather than treating it as deployable risk.

Position sizing may matter more in the $1.5K Challenge

The $1.5K version stands apart because it limits traders to two micros and no minis.

That dramatically reduces the ability to accelerate progress through position size.

By comparison, the $3K and $6K Challenges allow 10 micros or one mini, giving traders much more flexibility in scaling entries, reducing size after losses, or adjusting exposure based on volatility.

That could make the $1.5K Challenge naturally slower for traders who usually rely on larger position sizes.

It also potentially makes it harder to recover from a drawdown quickly, because the maximum position size remains small even after a trader falls behind.

The $6K Challenge may reward time more than aggression

The contract cap creates perhaps the most interesting strategy implication.

Because the $6K version has twice the target and twice the maximum loss of the $3K Challenge but the same maximum size, the account may favor a more patient approach.

A trader trying to force the $6,000 target quickly has limited ability to increase size beyond the $3K account’s maximum.

That means the extra $1,000 of risk capacity may be more useful as survival room than as permission to trade more aggressively.

In practical terms, a trader could view the larger drawdown as additional tolerance for normal variance rather than as capital that must be actively put at risk.

The 90-day lifespan creates a second constraint

The $6K Challenge has a 90-day lifespan, and Topstep’s FAQ says the $3K and $1.5K Challenges also expire after 90 days. Inactivity for 30 days can also close the smaller challenges, and Topstep states that the $6K Challenge closes after 30 days without trades as well.

That means traders face two competing pressures:

trade too aggressively and risk hitting the maximum loss;

trade too cautiously and risk running out of time before completing both rounds.

That balance is likely to matter more in the $6K version because the absolute target is larger while maximum position size remains unchanged from the $3K product.

Purchase limits differ significantly

The challenge products also have different repeatability rules.

Topstep says the $3K Challenge currently has no cap on how many can be purchased, although no more than five can be active in the Payout Round at one time.

The $1.5K Challenge is limited to five purchases per trader, and closed accounts still count against that total.

The $6K Challenge also has a five-account lifetime purchase limit. Topstep says the limit covers accounts in either round and that closed accounts cannot be replaced. The $6K release itself is limited to 10,000 units.

That makes failure more consequential on the $6K and $1.5K versions than on the current $3K structure.

Product restrictions also differ

Topstep applies additional product restrictions to these Labs challenges.

For the $6K Challenge, Topstep says traders cannot trade MHG, SIL, HG, SL, CL, GC, HO, QM, PL or RB. CPI trading is restricted, and MGC and MCL are limited to six micros.

The $3K Challenge has fewer restricted products but still blocks MHG, MET, MBT and SIL, restricts CPI trading, and limits MGC and MCL to six micros. The $1.5K Challenge carries still tighter limits, including only one MGC or MCL contract.

Those restrictions matter for traders who primarily trade metals, energy products or CPI volatility.

These Challenges do not create a path to Live by themselves

Topstep is explicit that performance in the Challenge products alone does not lead to a Live Funded Account.

The $6K Challenge does not affect Live eligibility, and Topstep makes the same distinction for the smaller challenge formats. Traders can still participate in the normal Trading Combine/XFA/LFA pipeline separately.

That makes the Challenges a parallel product line rather than a replacement for Topstep’s traditional funding path.

What kind of trading approach fits the structure?

The account rules create several practical constraints worth considering.

A trader focused on the $1.5K Challenge has very limited size, so execution quality and patience may matter more than aggressive scaling.

The $3K Challenge offers more contract flexibility and the lowest fee relative to the advertised payout, but still requires completion of two $3,000 rounds.

The $6K Challenge provides the most absolute drawdown room, but the unchanged 10-micro/one-mini contract cap means the larger target cannot simply be attacked by doubling size.

Across all three, the lack of a consistency rule means there is no formal penalty for having one unusually large winning day. But relying on a single oversized trade still carries obvious account-risk consequences because the static maximum loss remains the sole hard failure threshold.

A more durable approach may be to treat the max loss as a total challenge budget, not as a usable trading stop.

For example, a trader might internally divide the $2,000 maximum loss on the $6K account into smaller daily or trade-level loss limits. That creates a self-imposed guardrail even though Topstep does not require one.

Similarly, traders could scale position size based on accumulated cushion rather than starting each challenge at maximum size.

Those are strategic choices rather than Topstep requirements, but they follow directly from the structure of the products.

The broader significance of Topstep Labs

There is also a bigger industry story here.

Topstep launched Labs as a place to test experimental account structures with real traders. The first five drops have already included static-drawdown evaluations, a $250K account, and three fixed-payout Challenge formats.

The $6K Challenge suggests Topstep is continuing to experiment with products that sit outside the traditional recurring-subscription evaluation model.

Instead of:

evaluation → funded account → repeated payouts

the Challenge model is:

challenge → payout round → fixed reward → account closes

That is a materially different economic design.

Whether Topstep eventually incorporates elements of that model into its broader product lineup remains to be seen. Topstep itself describes Labs as an experimental environment where some ideas may graduate into the main program and others may not.

For now, the $6K Challenge gives traders a third version of the format — but one with a substantially larger fee, the same maximum position size as the $3K version, stricter purchase limits and a larger absolute risk budget.

Those differences make it more than just a bigger-number version of the existing Challenge.