One journal across every funded account — not a spreadsheet per firm.

A funded trader rarely runs one account. There is the evaluation you are trying to pass, the funded account you are protecting, and often several of each across different firms — each with its own balance, its own rules, and its own idea of what a good day looks like. Kept in separate spreadsheets or firm dashboards, those numbers never sit next to each other, and the account quietly drifting toward a breach is the one you weren't looking at.

MimikTrader captures fills from every connected account automatically and keeps them in one journal, with the P&L split out per account. You see all of them at once instead of tabbing between broker portals to piece together where you actually stand.

Prop firms don't grade you on lifetime return — they grade you on the rules. Your daily P&L only matters relative to that account's daily loss limit, your equity only matters relative to its trailing or static drawdown, and many firms won't pay until your results are consistent enough that no single day carries the month.

The journal surfaces exactly those readings. The P&L calendar puts each day on a grid per account, with a month-consistency read that shows whether your profit is spread across many days or leaning on one outlier — the same shape a firm's consistency rule is checking. Max drawdown appears as a KPI so you can see how close a run took you to an account's line, and the risk report mode frames the account against its worst observed exposure.

If you copy a leader account across several followers, one decision becomes many fills — and MimikTrader journals each one against the account it actually landed on, at that account's own size. A leader's 1-contract entry copied at a 2x multiplier becomes a 2-contract fill on the larger account (as a hypothetical example), and both are logged separately with their own P&L rather than collapsed into a single blended number.

That per-account truth is what makes a multi-account review honest. You can tell which funded account is genuinely producing versus which is only up because it was sized larger, because the journal never averages them together.

An evaluation and a funded account are not reviewed the same way. On an eval the question is whether your process clears the objective without tripping a rule; on a funded account the question is whether you can keep producing without giving back what the firm has already paid. The journal supports both by keeping each account's history separate, so you can review an eval's push and a funded account's defense on their own terms.

The workflow here is honest by design: the journal tells you what happened across your accounts and where your edge sits, but it does not promise a pass and it does not turn a losing approach into a winning one. It gives you the per-account record and the metrics; the discipline is still yours to apply.