Instant funding programs get a lot of attention because they look like the future of the category. Two phase evaluations still dominate revenue for most established firms. Neither fact contradicts the other, because the two models are largely serving different customers.
The case for two phase
A two phase structure gives you, as the operator, two full evaluation windows to observe a trader's behavior before any real payout obligation exists. It is also the format most traders already understand, since it has been the industry default for years, which lowers the explanation burden on your marketing and support team. The tradeoff is time. A trader has to wait, sometimes weeks, to find out if they passed, and some buyers simply will not accept that wait.
The case for instant funding
Instant funding removes the wait entirely, usually at a meaningfully higher price point. It converts a real segment of traders who are confident in their own strategy and do not want to prove it twice before getting paid. The tradeoff moves in the other direction. You have far less observed history on that trader before real money is on the line, so risk controls, position sizing limits, and drawdown enforcement need to be tighter and more automated from the very first trade.
Running both is common, and reasonable
A growing number of firms simply offer both tracks side by side, letting the trader self select based on how much they are willing to pay for speed. This works well operationally as long as the risk rules for the instant track are genuinely stricter, not just a copy of the two phase rules with the waiting period removed. Treat instant funding as a distinct risk profile, not a shortcut version of the same product.