There is no single "best" bank for the MRCPCH Foundation of Practice (FOP) exam — the right resource depends on your time, your budget and where your paediatric knowledge is weak. This is the exam-level hub for that one decision: it maps the principal resources to the jobs they do well and routes you by profile. One flag before you spend anything: if you were planning to revise FOP on Quesmed, it does not publish an MRCPCH theory bank at all (explained below).
Start with the exam, then choose the resource
FOP is the first written stage of the MRCPCH, usually sat alongside Theory and Science (TAS). It is 100 SBA questions in 2 hours, one paper, every item single best answer with one mark and no negative marking, computer-based at a centre or online. FOP tests foundational paediatric knowledge across the breadth of child health — acute and emergency presentations, neonatology, growth and development, common chronic conditions, and the professional and safeguarding context. Calibrate format and blueprint against the current RCPCH theory-exam structure and syllabi and official sample papers, not a vendor's topic list.
Plan for FOP and TAS together
Most candidates sit FOP and TAS on the same day, so plan them as one campaign rather than two separate projects. TAS (Theory and Science) is also 100 SBA in 2 hours with no negative marking, but it leans harder into the science underpinning paediatric practice — physiology, genetics, pharmacology, statistics and evidence — where FOP leans into applied foundational knowledge. Banks such as Passmed and PassPaeds deliberately bundle FOP and TAS for this reason. Practically, that means your coverage matrix should carry both syllabi, your weak-domain floors should include the TAS science domains, and your budget decision should check whether a bank covers both stages before you buy. If you have chosen a FOP-only resource, confirm your TAS coverage separately rather than assuming one subscription carries both.
The resource landscape (verify every figure on publication day)
All figures below are vendor-reported and last checked 20 July 2026. The table matches each resource to its best job — it is not a ranking.
| Resource | Best job | FOP coverage (vendor-reported, 20 July 2026) | Cost signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| RCPCH official material | Format and blueprint calibration | Sample papers, structure and syllabi, MCQ-writing guidance, RCPCH Learning | Free / official |
| Pastest | Volume, teaching and on-demand tutoring | Dedicated FOP bank; large question pool plus AI tutor mode (confirm the current FOP count on the product page) | Multi-month tiers |
| BMJ OnExamination | Edited items, mocks and peer benchmarking | Dedicated FOP product; 930+ questions, mock tests, feedback and peer comparison | 1mo £34.99 to 12mo £149.99 |
| PassPaeds | Low-cost spaced retrieval | Dedicated FOP bank; 1,500+ questions, spaced-repetition "knowledge tutor", daily peer histograms | 4mo £20 / 6mo £30 |
| Passmed | Low-cost past-paper drilling | FOP/TAS bank; 1,100+ past-paper MCQs; exam mode and dashboard | Low (USD shown; confirm GBP) |
| Quesmed | — | No MRCPCH theory bank (see flag) | — |
| iatroX | Unseen measurement and spaced retrieval | General UK clinical bank; no dedicated MRCPCH landing | See product page |
Honesty flag — Quesmed. Quesmed is a natural first thought because it dominates UKMLA and MRCP revision, but its only paediatric product is a Paediatrics ST1 Interview Question Bank — for interview preparation, not the MRCPCH theory exams. It publishes no FOP, TAS or AKP bank. Do not plan FOP revision around it.
Segment yourself first
- First attempt, adequate runway: prioritise coverage and calibration over raw volume.
- Retake after a narrow fail: target the specific domains that failed you, with unseen measurement.
- Busy trainee revising around clinical work: a portable single bank and strict prioritisation.
- Weak foundations: a teaching-heavy resource before high-volume drilling.
- Strong knowledge, poor pacing: timed mixed blocks and mock conditions, not more content.
- Strong on MCQs, weak on applied items: more data-interpretation and image-based practice now, and — much further out — dedicated Clinical/OSCE preparation, which no FOP bank provides.
Define the minimum stack
A sufficient FOP stack is usually one primary Q-bank, the official RCPCH sample material for calibration, one teaching or reference source only where foundations are weak, and one unseen-measurement layer to distinguish learning from memorisation. FOP is a breadth exam, so the primary bank's job is broad, well-explained coverage rather than exotic edge cases.
Budget bands
- Free / low-cost: RCPCH official material plus a genuinely low-cost dedicated bank — PassPaeds at £20–£30 for several months, or Passmed's FOP/TAS bank — and the free iatroX UK core for unseen checks. FOP is the stage where a strong budget option really exists.
- One premium resource: a single comprehensive bank (Pastest for teaching-plus-volume, or BMJ OnExamination for edited items with mocks and peer benchmarking) plus the official material.
- Comprehensive stack: one premium bank, the official calibration set, and an unseen second bank added under the two-Q-bank rule so it does not duplicate your primary.
Confirm every price on the product page on the day you buy.
Time bands — and what to omit
- Under four weeks: one bank only, an official sample paper early for calibration, then daily timed mixed blocks weighted to weak domains. Omit second banks and note-making.
- Four to twelve weeks: one primary bank plus official calibration plus spaced retrieval; add unseen measurement in the second half.
- More than twelve weeks: build coverage systematically, consider a second bank under the two-Q-bank rule, and reserve the official sample material for the final fortnight as an unseen calibration.
Three worked profiles
Chidi — first attempt, six weeks, on a busy rota. Budget matters, so a low-cost dedicated bank (PassPaeds, 1,500+ questions with spaced repetition, vendor-reported) as primary, official sample paper in week one, and the free iatroX core for unseen checks. Weekly: three short topic blocks on weak domains, two timed mixed blocks, daily spaced review. Exit criterion: every domain above floor on unseen items, pace inside 2 hours.
Sara — retake after a narrow fail, four weeks. Pull her prior domain profile, attack the two weakest domains, and use an unseen bank so she is not re-answering half-remembered items. Weekly: two targeted topic blocks, three timed mixed blocks. Exit criterion: previously weak domains match her strong ones on unseen first-attempt accuracy.
Tom — strong knowledge, poor pacing, five weeks. Minimal new content; near-daily full-length timed blocks (100 items in 2 hours) with a hard move-on rule; analytics only to confirm accuracy holds as speed rises. Exit criterion: full timed blocks completed with margin and no accuracy drop.
Evidence hierarchy for every claim you rely on
Rank sources deliberately: official RCPCH material first for format and blueprint; primary guidance (NICE, CKS, SIGN, SmPC/eMC) for content — for paediatric prescribing, work from the SmPC/eMC with NICE/CKS rather than any other formulary shorthand; vendor pages for product facts, labelled vendor-reported; and independent testing, including your own unseen scores, for readiness. Official body wins on format; primary guidance wins on content.
Cannibalisation guardrail
This hub gives the decision, not a full audit of each product. For the detailed evidence on any single platform, follow the narrow child articles and the iatroX comparison hub rather than expecting a product tour here.
Three ways this decision goes wrong
The same three errors recur. First, choosing by brand or headline price rather than by your measured weakest domain — a breadth exam like FOP rewards broad, well-explained coverage, so the right bank is the one that fills your specific gaps, not the one with the largest advert. Second, stacking two premium banks that overlap heavily, which duplicates practice and blurs calibration, when the second slot should be an inexpensive or free unseen-measurement layer. Third, treating the official RCPCH sample material as throwaway early practice instead of saving it as the one representative, non-repeatable calibration for the final fortnight. None of these is about effort; they are about sequencing and matching the resource to the gap.
Bottom line
For most FOP candidates the pragmatic answer is one dedicated paediatric bank sized to your budget — a low-cost option such as PassPaeds or Passmed, or a premium one such as Pastest or BMJ OnExamination — plus the official RCPCH material as the calibration gold standard and a small unseen-measurement layer. The branch you take is set by time, budget and weakest component, not by a "best bank" label. Just do not route FOP revision through Quesmed, which does not cover the exam.
FAQ
How do I know whether I have covered the full MRCPCH Foundation of Practice blueprint? Coverage cannot be read off an overall percentage; map your attempted items against the published RCPCH structure and syllabus, domain by domain, and confirm that low-volume areas have been attempted under timed conditions, not just the high-yield core. A simple coverage matrix — see our completion-is-not-coverage guide — turns "I've done lots of questions" into an auditable map, and any domain below floor counts as unfinished.
Can one question bank be enough for MRCPCH Foundation of Practice? For many candidates, yes — one dedicated FOP bank plus the official RCPCH sample material is sufficient, as long as you verify readiness on unseen items. FOP is a breadth exam, so the greater risk with a single bank is late-stage calibration drift, where accuracy reflects familiarity with the bank rather than knowledge. A small unseen second set fixes that without a second full subscription.
What should I measure instead of my overall Q-bank percentage for MRCPCH Foundation of Practice? Measure first-attempt accuracy per domain on unseen, timed items, your pace against the 2-hour clock, and retention of missed items on spaced re-test. The headline percentage is inflated by repeats and by your strong domains, which is precisely why your Q-bank percentage is not your exam score. The domain profile and the unseen trend are what predict a pass.
When should I stop doing new MRCPCH Foundation of Practice questions? Stop adding new content once every domain is above your coverage floor, first-attempt accuracy on unseen mixed blocks is stable, and your pacing is comfortable inside 2 hours — then spend the remaining time on timed mixed revision and spaced review. Completing every last question in a bank past that point adds reassurance, not marks.
Which MRCPCH Foundation of Practice resource should I use for my weakest component? Match resource to component: for weak foundations, a teaching-heavy bank with structured explanations (Pastest) before high-volume drilling; for tight budgets with a broad gap, a low-cost dedicated bank (PassPaeds or Passmed) for volume; for pacing, any bank in full-length timed mode; and remember that no FOP bank prepares you for the separate Clinical/OSCE exam, which needs its own practice. Take a fresh iatroX baseline first so you are treating a measured weakness rather than a guessed one.
Editorial notes and references
Written by Dr Kolawole Tytler, NHS GP and founder of iatroX. Last checked 20 July 2026. Product figures (question counts, prices, features) are vendor-reported from the respective product pages on that date and change without notice — verify before purchase. Disclosure: iatroX operates a competing UK question bank and has no dedicated MRCPCH landing page; its role here is confined to unseen measurement and spaced retrieval — jobs the paediatric-specific banks do not claim to do for you — and no proprietary algorithm is claimed. Corrections are welcome via the feedback route on iatrox.com.
References: RCPCH theory-exam structure, syllabi and sample papers (rcpch.ac.uk); BMJ OnExamination MRCPCH FOP product page (onexamination.com); Pastest MRCPCH FOP pages (pastest.com); PassPaeds FOP product page (passpaeds.com); Passmed MRCPCH FOP/TAS page (passmed.uk); Quesmed paediatrics interview product (quesmed.com); iatroX, "Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score"; iatroX, "The two-Q-bank rule".