Optiver vs Flow Traders vs CTC — Format Comparison
Three of the most-searched trading OAs sit in the same funnel and almost never share a strategy. This page puts the publicly reported numbers next to each other — question count, clock, input type, penalty, and practice target — and says what that does to how you sit the paper. Independent comparison; not affiliated with any firm.
The three papers at a glance
| Optiver-style 80 in 8 | Flow Traders–style | CTC-style OA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it is | Pure mental arithmetic | Pure mental arithmetic | Mixed aptitude (four families) |
| Length | 80 questions · 8 min | 75 questions · 8 min | 50 questions · 15 min |
| Seconds / item | 6 | ≈6.4 | ≈18 |
| Input | Typed (classic form) | 4-choice MCQ | Multiple choice |
| Wrong-answer penalty | −1 | −2 | None |
| Skip | Free (0) | Free (0) | Wasted — guess instead |
| Benchmark provenance | Candidate-reported practice benchmark: ~60 net — not an official cutoff | TradeMind practice target: 70 net on this 75Q / 8-minute configuration — a training setting, not a firm cutoff | Published cutoff: Not publicly available |
| Blind-guess EV | N/A (typed) | 0.25×1 + 0.75×(−2) = −1.25 | +0.25 (4-choice) — always non-negative |
Same industry, three scoring systems. Training only one of them and hoping the others transfer is how otherwise-strong candidates lose a week.
Optiver-style 80 in 8 — typed speed and −1 scoring
The format most candidates mean when they say "trading math test": 80 arithmetic questions, 8 minutes, answers typed rather than picked. Public reports of the classic paper put a −1 on a miss and candidates cite a benchmark around 60 net(correct minus wrong, skips 0), not an official cutoff. That last word matters. 68 correct and 7 wrong is 61 net, not 68.
Because there are no options, you cannot stumble into the right number. The failure modes are decision latency (half a second spent choosing a method), negative-marking discipline, and the last 90 seconds when accuracy collapses. The rest of Optiver's OA, as publicly described, is a different set of papers — NumberLogic sequences, Beat the Odds probability, Zap-N games, Zap-Q personality — covered on the 80-in-8 page. Do not treat 80-in-8 as the whole Optiver process.
Some reports describe a 4-choice variant of 80-in-8. The simulator on this site is the typed form. If your invite is MCQ, the arithmetic is the same; the guessing math is not.
Flow Traders–style practice — formats vary
Publicly described Flow routes do not resolve to one universal configuration: question counts and clocks vary by region, role and recruiting cycle. TradeMind keeps a deliberately demanding 75-question, 8-minute, four-choice practice mode with a −2 penalty and a ~70 net training target. Two careless errors cost 4 net points, which makes it the most unforgiving practice scoring in this comparison.
MCQ looks easier than typed until you notice the distractors are built from the slips you actually make: off-by-one, forgotten carry, add-across on a fraction, decimal point shifted one place. "Looks about right" is the trap the paper is designed to catch. And the guessing math is worse than Optiver: a 4-choice blind guess at +1/−2 is strongly negative EV. You need to be genuinely torn between two remaining options before answering beats skipping. Full write-up: Flow Traders math test and how the 70-point practice target works.
CTC — mixed reasoning, 15 minutes, no penalty
Chicago Trading Company's OA, as candidates describe it, is not an 80-in-8 cousin. It is 50 questions in 15 minutes mixing numerical reasoning, spatial / abstract, verbal, and logic / attention to detail, with no penalty for wrong answers. Average 18 seconds per item, and the hard part is switching families, not any single stem.
Strategy inverts. Never leave a blank. In the last 30 seconds, answer everything remaining. Bank the fast families (attention-to-detail, short syllogisms) and stop being a perfectionist on a multi-step depreciation problem. There is no published single cutoff; the arithmetic targets discussed online are anecdotal and format-specific. Maximising raw correct under the clock is the practical goal. Simulator: CTC OA.
What to drill if you do not know which firm yet
- Untimed accuracy on two-digit multiplication, fractions, and decimals. That block is shared tissue for Optiver and Flow. Do not add a clock until the error rate is boring.
- One full timed 80-in-8 and one full Flow run so you feel the difference between typed −1 and MCQ −2. They do not feel the same. Scores on this site are comparable because each page is a fixed set.
- One CTC-style mixed paper so the context-switch is not a surprise. Isolated arithmetic drills will not train it.
- Skip vs guess as a separate skill. Write down your personal rule before test day: CTC = never blank; Optiver-style = skip under ~70% confidence; this Flow-style mode = skip unless two options remain.
If you already know the firm, skip the other two formats until you can sit that firm's paper without inventing a new strategy mid-clock. The prep guide has a 5-week plan that sequences this on purpose.
Where Zetamac fits (and does not)
Zetamac is a useful untimed-feel arithmetic gym: two minutes, as many clean operations as you can, no skip EV, no firm penalty, no distractors. A high Zetamac score is evidence you can multiply. It is not evidence you will handle a −2 practice mode or finish CTC's verbal section. The longer comparison is Zetamac vs real firm tests.
FAQ
Which of Optiver, Flow Traders, and CTC is the hardest math test?
They test different things, and current formats can vary. TradeMind's Flow-style 75Q / −2 configuration uses the harshest practice scoring here. Optiver-style 80-in-8 has the tightest clock (6 seconds, typed), while the CTC-style practice set emphasizes switching between four reasoning families.
Should I guess?
On CTC, yes — no negative marking, blanks are wasted. On Optiver-style 80-in-8 (−1), skip unless you are confident. On Flow (−2 on 4-choice), skipping is even more valuable: a blind guess has negative expected value around −1.25.
Is this official?
No. Formats below are independent reconstructions from publicly described assessments. Firms do not confirm cutoffs. TradeMind is not affiliated with Optiver, Flow Traders, or Chicago Trading Company.
TradeMind is an independent training tool and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Optiver, Flow Traders, Chicago Trading Company, or any other firm mentioned. Figures are reconstructions from publicly available descriptions of assessment formats and may evolve. Question content on the linked simulators is procedurally generated and does not reproduce actual test material.