How We Review Prop Firms
Every “review” on this site follows the same method. That’s the point: if the criteria don’t change, you can trust the comparison. Here’s exactly what we look at, where the numbers come from, and how the score is built.
The five criteria
Each firm is scored 0–5 on five sub-scores, then given an overall rating. We deliberately do not let the headline profit split drive the rating — 80–90% is standard across the industry, so it rarely separates firms.
| Criterion | What we actually check |
|---|---|
| Pricing & value | One-time fee vs recurring subscription, activation/data fees, reset or repurchase costs, whether the fee is refunded on success |
| Rule fairness | Drawdown model (static / EOD trailing / intraday trailing), profit target and minimum trading days, consistency rules, news-trading restrictions, buffer rules |
| Payout reliability | First-payout waiting period, payout cycles, caps and minimums, processing times, published payout track record |
| Platform & flexibility | Supported platforms, markets (futures vs forex/CFD), account stacking limits, weekend/EA trading rules |
| Beginner-friendliness | How easy the evaluation is to pass, how clearly the rules are written, how much a mistake costs |
The drawdown model decides most verdicts
The single biggest cause of blown funded accounts is a drawdown model mismatch: you pass an evaluation on one model, then trade the funded account on a stricter one. So the first thing we establish for every firm is:
- Static drawdown — the loss floor never moves. Predictable, beginner-friendly.
- End-of-day (EOD) trailing — recalculated at the close. Forgiving to intraday swings.
- Intraday trailing — follows your equity in real time. Strictest; catches scalpers and position traders alike.
If a firm’s funded stage uses a different model than its evaluation (Take Profit Trader’s PRO account is the classic example), that goes straight into the verdict.
Where the data comes from
Every number on a review page traces to one of three sources:
- The firm’s official rulebook and pricing page — the primary source, checked directly.
- Public trader feedback — Trustpilot and trading forums, used to confirm payout behavior and spot rules that firms under-emphasize in marketing.
- Our own verification — walking the sign-up flow to confirm fees, activation costs and the actual evaluation rules presented.
We state a data-as-of date on every review because prop firm terms change constantly. If a firm announces a material change (a new drawdown option, a fee restructuring, a payout policy shift), we re-check and update the page.
How the overall rating is built
The overall 0–5 rating is not a marketing star count — it reflects the score breakdown:
- 4.5–5.0: exceptional on the criteria that matter; few or no material catches
- 4.0–4.4: strong, with one real caveat you must know before buying (usually a drawdown or fee detail)
- 3.5–3.9: usable but with trade-offs that will disqualify it for some traders
- Below 3.5: only fits a narrow strategy; we say who should avoid it
Every review ends with a plain “who should use this firm / who should skip it” — because the right firm depends on how you trade, not on a universal ranking.
Independence and disclosure
- We are not affiliated with any prop firm, and we do not accept payment to change a rating, score or verdict.
- Some outbound links are affiliate links. When they are, we disclose it on the page, and it never changes the review.
- Nothing on this site is financial, investment or trading advice — it’s educational content. Always confirm the current rules, fees and eligibility on the firm’s official website before paying for an evaluation.
Questions or corrections?
See a figure that’s out of date, or a rule change we missed? Tell us via the contact page and we’ll verify and update it.