How We Score and Rank Futures Prop Firms
Every review site says it is independent. Almost none of them publish the actual method, which means the claim cannot be checked.
This page publishes ours. The seven factors we score, what each one is worth, where the data comes from, how often it is rechecked, and exactly how affiliate relationships are handled. If you disagree with how we weight something, you can see what we weighted and argue with it.
That is the point. A scoring method you cannot inspect is a marketing claim. A scoring method you can inspect is a position you can hold us to.
The Short Version
We score seven factors out of 10 each, apply a weighting, and produce an overall score out of 10. The heaviest weights go to the rules that decide whether a trader keeps an account and gets paid, not to the numbers firms advertise most loudly.
Account size, headline profit split and evaluation price are deliberately low weighted or excluded. They are the most visible figures in this industry and the least predictive of a trader’s outcome.
The Seven Factors
1. Drawdown structure
What we assess: Whether the drawdown is static, end of day trailing or intraday trailing, and critically whether a trailing drawdown updates on closed balance or on peak unrealised equity.
Why it carries the heaviest weight: More traders lose accounts to drawdown breaches than to any other cause, including failure to reach profit targets. Two firms advertising identical account sizes and targets can have completely different failure rates based on this one variable.
How it scores: Static scores highest. End of day trailing scores in the middle. Intraday trailing on peak equity scores lowest, because unrealised profit given back permanently reduces the buffer without producing anything. Firms that do not state which mechanism applies lose additional points, since ambiguity on the most important rule is itself a failure.
2. Rule clarity
What we assess: Whether a trader can read the terms once and know exactly what closes the account.
Why it matters: A rule that can be reinterpreted after a payout request is not a rule, it is discretion. Language about “trading behaviour”, “manipulation” or “abuse of the platform” without definitions scores down hard, because those clauses are applied after the fact and always in the firm’s favour.
How it scores: Points for defined breach conditions, versioned terms pages, and consistency between the evaluation document and the funded account document. Points off for vague clauses, for rules that appear only in support replies rather than in writing, and for terms that change without notice.
3. Payout terms and reliability
What we assess: The minimum profit threshold before a first withdrawal, the minimum trading days required, whether a first payout cap applies, the consistency rule, and the documented payout record.
Why it matters: A profit split only applies to money you can withdraw. Ninety percent of an unreachable threshold is nothing.
How it scores: Reachable thresholds and short minimum day requirements score highest. Persistent payout caps score lowest. Firms that publish payout data score above firms that publish testimonials. We also weight whether the consistency rule is disclosed on the pricing page or buried in the terms, because the timing of the disclosure tells you something about the firm.
4. Total cost to first payout
What we assess: Entry price, expected reset cost, funding activation fee, and every recurring platform, data or maintenance charge that runs until the first withdrawal clears.
Why it matters: The advertised price is rarely the amount a trader actually spends. A cheap evaluation with high monthly fees and an expensive reset frequently costs more in total than a pricier competitor with neither.
How it scores: On the realistic total, not the sticker price. Firms that bundle platform and data score above firms that charge separately, all else equal.
5. Platform and data access
What we assess: Which platforms are supported, whether market data is bundled or billed separately, whether the data tier is professional or non professional, and whether a licence the trader already owns can be used.
Why it matters: Platform lock in is a real cost and a real constraint. A firm that only supports one vendor limits both your execution options and your ability to move.
How it scores: Breadth of platform support, transparency about data charges, and absence of forced vendor lock in.
6. Scaling and account growth
What we assess: How a profitable trader increases size, whether the scaling plan is automatic or discretionary, and what triggers a split increase.
Why it matters: Discretionary scaling is not a scaling plan. If growth depends on a decision the firm makes case by case, the published plan is aspirational.
How it scores: Automatic, clearly triggered scaling scores highest. Discretionary scaling scores low regardless of how generous the ceiling looks.
7. Transparency and company standing
What we assess: Named ownership, company registration, a responsive and documented support channel, a clear complaints path, and whether the firm states plainly whether accounts are live or simulated.
Why it matters: In a market where the written agreement is your only protection, knowing who the counterparty is matters.
How it scores: Points for disclosed ownership and registration, for support that responds in writing, and for stating the live versus simulated question directly rather than relying on the word “funded” to blur it.
How the Weighting Works
Confirm before publishing: the weights below must match the weighting actually applied in the rating tables. Publishing a weighting the site does not use is worse than publishing none, because it is checkable.
| Factor | Weight |
| Drawdown structure | 25% |
| Payout terms and reliability | 20% |
| Rule clarity | 20% |
| Total cost to first payout | 15% |
| Transparency and company standing | 10% |
| Platform and data access | 5% |
| Scaling and account growth | 5% |
Drawdown, payouts and rule clarity together account for 65% of the score. That is intentional. Those three decide whether a trader keeps the account and sees money. Everything else is comfort.
What We Do Not Score On
Account size. A 150,000 dollar account with an intraday trailing drawdown offers less usable room than a 50,000 dollar account on static. Size is a marketing number.
Headline profit split. Scored only as part of the payout factor, and always against the threshold required to access it.
Trustpilot score or social proof. Review scores on third party platforms in this industry are heavily influenced by incentivised review campaigns and by affiliate promotion. We report them where relevant but they do not enter our score.
Sponsorships and marketing spend. A firm sponsoring an athlete tells you about its marketing budget, not its payout reliability.
Affiliate commission. See below.
Affiliate Links and How They Are Handled
We earn commission when a reader signs up with some of the firms on this site. This is disclosed on every page that carries such a link.
Three rules govern how that relationship interacts with scoring.
Commission rate is never an input to the score. The seven factors above are the complete list. Commission is not among them and is not visible to whoever applies the scoring.
Firms we earn nothing from are scored and ranked identically. If a firm without an affiliate programme scores highest, it ranks highest.
No firm can pay for placement, a higher score, or removal of criticism. If a firm offers this, we say so in the review.
We disclose this because guidance on endorsements, including the FTC endorsement guides, requires material connections to be clear. It is also the only way a published methodology means anything.
Where the Data Comes From
Primary source: the firm’s own terms pages. Every rule figure we publish comes from the firm’s written terms, not from its landing page or its affiliate marketing material. Where the two conflict, the terms govern and we note the conflict.
Secondary source: written support confirmation. Where terms are ambiguous on a scoring relevant point, we ask support in writing and retain the reply. Verbal or chat confirmations that cannot be retained are not used.
Contract and market data: taken from the exchange rather than from firms. CME Group publishes contract specifications including tick values and trading hours.
Regulatory context: taken from the regulator. The CFTC customer protection resources set out what protection applies to registered futures customer accounts, which is relevant because most prop firm evaluation payments fall outside it.
Not used as sources: firm press releases, affiliate marketing packs, unverified community claims, and third party review aggregator scores.
How Often Scores Are Rechecked
Firms change rules frequently in this industry, sometimes without announcement. A score is only as current as its last check.
Every review carries a last verified date. Scores are rechecked on a scheduled cycle and immediately when a firm announces a rules or pricing change, when readers report a discrepancy, or when a payout complaint pattern emerges.
Rule changes we consider material are covered on the NewsFlash section as they happen.
When We Get It Wrong
We will get things wrong. Terms pages are long, they change, and firms do not always announce changes.
When a factual error is reported and confirmed, we correct it and note the correction rather than editing silently. When a score changes as a result, the review states what changed and why.
If you find an error, or you have documentation of a payout experience that contradicts what we have published, tell us through the contact page. Documentation matters more than opinion here, and screenshots of terms pages or support replies are the most useful thing you can send.
What This Scoring Cannot Tell You
Worth stating plainly.
A score measures the programme, not your fit with it. A firm scoring 9 out of 10 with intraday trailing drawdown is still the wrong firm for a trader who scales into positions. Use the score to filter out programmes with genuinely bad terms, then choose among the survivors based on how you actually trade.
A score also cannot predict a firm’s future solvency or conduct. It assesses published terms, documented history and current transparency. Those are the best available signals, and they are not guarantees.
Finally, no score changes what you are buying. A prop firm evaluation is generally a service fee rather than a deposit in a regulated, segregated brokerage account. That is true of well scoring firms and badly scoring ones alike.
Applying This Yourself
If you would rather evaluate a firm yourself than rely on our score, work in this order. It takes about ten minutes per firm.
Find the drawdown type and whether it trails on balance or equity. Find the first payout threshold and the minimum trading days. Check whether a payout cap applies. Read the funded account terms as a separate document from the evaluation terms. Add up total cost including recurring fees until a realistic first payout. Then, and only then, look at the price and any discount.
Our one step, two step and instant funding hubs explain what to expect from each model, and Chapter 04 covers how futures prop trading works if the vocabulary is new.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Are futures prop firms legit?
The business model is used by many established companies, but standards vary widely between providers. Legitimacy depends on whether a specific firm publishes clear terms, discloses its ownership, honours payouts consistently and applies rules identically to every trader. Each firm should be assessed individually rather than judged by the category. - Are prop firms a scam?
Most are not, but the structure creates room for bad actors because the firm sets the rules, judges compliance and holds the money. The warning signs are consistent: vague breach conditions, terms that change without notice, undisclosed ownership, and rules that only surface when a payout is requested. - How do you choose a prop firm?
Start with the drawdown type and whether it trails on balance or peak equity, then the first payout threshold and minimum trading days, then total cost including recurring fees. Compare advertised price and profit split last. Those two are the most promoted and least predictive figures in the industry. - Do you get paid by the firms you review?
Yes, on some of them. We earn commission when readers sign up through certain links, and this is disclosed on every page carrying one. Commission rate is not one of our scoring factors, firms without affiliate programmes are scored identically, and placement cannot be purchased. - Can a firm pay for a better score?
No. If a firm offers payment for placement, a higher score or removal of criticism, we state that offer in the review. The seven scoring factors are the complete list of inputs and commercial terms are not among them. - Why is drawdown weighted so heavily?
Because more traders lose accounts to drawdown breaches than to any other cause, including missing profit targets. Two firms with identical advertised account sizes and targets can produce very different failure rates based purely on whether the drawdown is static, end of day trailing or intraday trailing. - Why do you ignore account size?
Account size is a marketing figure with little predictive value. A large account with an intraday trailing drawdown can offer less usable trading room than a much smaller account on a static structure. What matters is the buffer you can actually use, not the headline number. - Why do you ignore Trustpilot scores?
Third party review scores in this industry are heavily influenced by incentivised review campaigns and affiliate promotion, which makes them unreliable as a quality signal. We report them where relevant as context, but they do not enter our scoring calculation. - Where does your data come from?
Primarily from each firm’s written terms pages rather than its landing pages or marketing material. Where terms are ambiguous on a scoring relevant point, we obtain written confirmation from support and retain it. Contract specifications come from the exchange and regulatory context from the regulator. - How often are scores updated?
Every review carries a last verified date. Scores are rechecked on a scheduled cycle, and immediately when a firm announces a rules or pricing change, when a reader reports a discrepancy, or when a pattern of payout complaints emerges. Material changes are covered in our news section. - What if the terms page says something different from the landing page?
The written terms govern and we score against them. Where the two conflict we note the discrepancy in the review, because a consistent gap between marketing and terms is itself a signal about how a firm operates. - What is the difference between a high score and the right firm for me?
A score measures the programme, not your fit with it. A firm scoring highly on intraday trailing drawdown is still wrong for a trader who scales into positions. Use scores to eliminate programmes with genuinely poor terms, then choose among the remainder based on trading style. - Can your score predict whether a firm will pay me?
No. It assesses published terms, documented payout history and current transparency, which are the best available signals but not guarantees. No scoring method can predict a firm’s future solvency or conduct, and this should be factored into how much is committed to any single firm. - What should I do if I think a review is wrong?
Report it through the contact page with documentation where possible. Screenshots of terms pages or written support replies are the most useful evidence. Confirmed factual errors are corrected with a note rather than edited silently, and any resulting score change is explained in the review. - Does a high score mean my money is protected?
No. A prop firm evaluation payment is generally a service fee rather than a deposit held in a regulated, segregated brokerage account, and this is true regardless of how a firm scores. Scoring assesses the quality of the programme and its terms, not the legal protection of funds.
Conclusion
The value of a scoring method is that you can disagree with it. Ours weights drawdown structure, payout terms and rule clarity at 65% combined, and treats account size, headline splits and advertised pricing as marketing rather than signal.
If that weighting does not match how you trade, adjust it. The factors and the reasoning are all on this page, and you can apply them yourself against any firm’s terms in about ten minutes.
Next step: see the method applied across every firm we cover on the futures prop firms directory, or compare firms on our homepage.