How we rate prop trading firms

What the score measures

Our ten-point editorial score evaluates the clarity and practical conditions of the programs covered by a review. It combines rule clarity, total costs, payout conditions, program flexibility and company transparency. Each criterion receives equal weight.

The assessment depends on the evidence and the scope described in the review. A score based on official documents must not be represented as the result of trading a funded account. A firm-wide score should explain meaningful differences between programs rather than suggest that all its accounts are identical.

The number does not measure the probability of receiving a payout, passing an evaluation or making a profit. It is not a financial audit, a regulatory endorsement or a safety certificate.

Why some firms show Pending

A sourced profile can be published before a manual review is ready. In that case we show Pending instead of assigning a placeholder score. A completed data import, a company logo and a list of challenges are not enough to justify an editorial rating.

Before a score is published, the manual assessment needs a named author, a clear scope, supporting sources and a reason for each of the five criteria. If an essential part of the assessment remains unresolved, keep the rating pending rather than treating unknown information as an average score.

Rule clarity: 20%

We assess whether a trader can understand the conditions that govern the account before paying. This includes profit targets, daily and overall loss calculations, trailing thresholds, minimum trading days, news restrictions, holding rules, consistency requirements and prohibited strategies.

Clear rules specify the relevant balance or equity, timing and stage. Important exceptions should be findable and consistent across official sources. We look for ambiguity that could change a trader’s understanding of when an account breaches a rule.

A strict rule can be clearly explained. A generous-looking rule can be ambiguous. This criterion rewards understandable, consistent disclosure; the practical restrictions also inform the written suitability discussion.

Total costs: 20%

We assess the full documented cost structure for the programs in scope, not only the lowest advertised starting fee. Evaluation charges, recurring subscriptions, activation, resets, data, platform options and conditions for refunds or credits can all change the commitment.

The assessment considers whether these charges are transparent and how they compare with the service and restrictions offered. Different account sizes and billing models need context. We do not equate a larger nominal balance with better value.

A temporary promotion can be explained, but the core judgment should remain understandable without it. A low introductory fee should not conceal a large activation payment or recurring charge. Taxes and payment-provider charges should be identified where the source makes them relevant.

Payout conditions: 20%

We examine the documented path from eligible profit to a withdrawal or reward request. Relevant details include the profit split, minimum days, consistency tests, buffers, minimum amounts, request windows, caps, supported methods and stated processing times.

The review should explain how these requirements interact. An attractive split may matter less if a trader has not met a buffer or a qualifying-day condition. Stage-specific conditions must remain separate.

Published processing times describe the firm’s policy, not a measured result from our own test. If a writer documents an actual payout, that experience should be described separately with its date and limits. One successful request does not establish that every customer will have the same outcome.

Program flexibility: 20%

We assess the meaningful choices available within the reviewed programs: account sizes, evaluation routes, platforms, instruments, trading styles and supported holding periods. We also consider whether choices are restricted by location or account stage.

More products do not automatically earn a better score. A range is useful when the distinctions are understandable and address different needs. Several nearly identical variants with unclear conditions may create complexity rather than practical flexibility.

Restrictions on automated strategies, copying, news trading or overnight positions should be weighed against the program’s intended use. A firm may suit one approach well while being unsuitable for another. The review should make that distinction rather than claim universal suitability.

Company transparency: 20%

We assess the availability and consistency of information about the provider, the account environment, eligibility, contact channels and the agreements governing participation. The distinction between simulated and live trading should be understandable.

A review should identify what the official documents say about the operating entity and relevant restrictions, while acknowledging what public information cannot establish. A registration number, address or provider partnership alone is not proof of solvency or regulatory approval.

Unresolved contradictions, hard-to-find terms and unexplained important omissions should be discussed. We do not invent a finding of misconduct because a fact is unavailable, but we also do not treat absence of evidence as reassurance.

How to interpret a criterion score

Each criterion is scored from zero to ten, supported by written reasons. These bands provide a common language for writers; they are editorial anchors, not a statistical model. The same evidence standard applies whether or not the firm becomes a commercial partner.

• 9.0 to 10.0: exceptionally strong against the criterion, with clear supporting evidence and few material limitations in the reviewed scope.
• 7.0 to 8.9: strong overall, with identifiable limitations that should be explained.
• 5.0 to 6.9: mixed findings, with material trade-offs or weaknesses a reader needs to examine.
• 3.0 to 4.9: substantial weaknesses against the criterion, supported by specific evidence.
• 0.0 to 2.9: severe documented shortcomings against the criterion. This is not a substitute for an unresearched or missing assessment.

The calculation

Add the five criterion scores and divide by five. Round the result to one decimal place. Each criterion therefore contributes 20% of the overall score. We do not add a bonus for an affiliate relationship, a discount code or the size of a company’s marketing campaign.

For illustration only, criterion scores of 8.0, 7.0, 6.0, 8.0 and 7.0 total 36.0. Dividing by five gives an overall score of 7.2 out of 10. These are explanatory numbers and do not rate a real firm.

Do not average only the strongest criteria or silently omit an unfinished criterion. The score breakdown should let a reader reproduce the result and understand why a weakness in one area may matter more to their needs than the overall average.

Comparisons and important limitations

A futures subscription and a CFD evaluation can expose a trader to different conditions. Use the market category and program details to make a relevant comparison before using the score to narrow a choice. The cheapest listed fee may refer to a different size or billing model.

The score is not personalized. A high-rated firm may have a platform restriction, residency rule or prohibited strategy that excludes you. Important limitations belong in the review even when the overall assessment is favorable.

A factual profile remains useful when a review is pending. It lets you compare documented terms without suggesting that our editorial team has completed an assessment it has not yet written.

Reassessment and correction

A material change to costs, rules, payout requirements or company information can change a criterion score. The updated assessment should identify the new evidence and explain the effect on the conclusion. Routine data changes do not automatically mean the full review has been retested.

Readers and firms can challenge a factual basis by sending the relevant page, disputed statement and supporting official source to contact@propfirmsindex.com. We evaluate the evidence rather than negotiate a preferred number.

The framework is versioned so future changes to weighting or criteria can be explained. This guide uses version 1.0, introduced on 29 September 2026. A future methodology change should not silently make older and newer scores appear directly comparable.