How We Score Prop Firms

Category Weights for CFD and Futures Prop Firms

BestPropFirms.com applies separate weight sets for CFD and futures prop firms. The sets differ most in the Costs category, where CFD firms receive 20% and futures firms 30%. All other categories differ by 5 percentage points: Trust 10% for CFD and 15% for futures, Rules 30% versus 25%, Payouts 30% versus 25%, and Trading Access 10% versus 5%.

A weight is the maximum number of points out of 100 that a category contributes to the overall score. For example, a CFD firm scoring 8 out of 10 in Rules earns 24 of the 30 points available for that category, because the weight is 30 percent.

There is a deduction for a weak category, explained below. The final score is therefore not always just the weighted total.

The Trust category covers public reputation, backing and ownership, legal entity disclosure and verification, incident history and status, Trustpilot profile integrity and status, and time operating and payout track record.

Trust Score (10% CFD, 15% Futures)

Trust measures a firm's public standing, ownership backing, legal transparency, incident record, Trustpilot profile integrity and time operating. The category is a judgement across those six factors weighed together.

The factors are: public reputation, backing and ownership, legal entity disclosure and verification, incident history and status, Trustpilot profile integrity and status, and time operating and payout track record. A strength in one factor offsets a weakness in another.

Trust is calculated once at firm level and is not split by programme family. Where Trustpilot does not display a TrustScore for a firm, the review shows no score and uses neutral wording. This category applies the same six factors to CFD and futures firms.

Trust: what we weigh (same for both models)

Profile integrity considers whether the reviews belong to the firm itself, a related broker or an unrelated profile, and whether Trustpilot has flagged or suppressed the profile.

How we score each Trust component

We weigh the firm's public record and published terms to judge Trust across its six factors. A Trustpilot rating built on few reviews counts for less. Backing by an established broker, trading firm or prop group counts in the firm's favour. A registration number confirmed on a public register counts in the firm's favour. No contracting entity counts against it. A current payout suspension, paused operations or open regulatory action counts heavily against the firm. A Trustpilot fake-review warning counts against the firm, weighed against the other factors. Eight years or more of operating history counts in the firm's favour.

The Rules category covers evaluation difficulty, drawdown type and trading permissions.

Rules Score (30% CFD, 25% Futures)

The Rules category measures the difficulty of a firm's evaluation and the room a trader has to manage risk. A larger drawdown allowance gives a trader more room before an account is breached. Drawdown type matters because the way the floor moves affects risk management. A static drawdown floor stays fixed. A trailing drawdown floor moves up as the account makes profit, and the distinction between an end-of-day and an intraday trailing drawdown is captured. The static and trailing drawdown page explains these two drawdown types. The trailing drawdown page shows how a trailing floor moves, with a drawdown simulator. The end-of-day type updates on the closing balance, while the intraday type moves with open profit during the day.

An evaluation consistency rule limits how much of the total profit comes from a single day, which affects a trader whose results are uneven. A daily loss limit sets a separate cap on losses within one trading day. Minimum evaluation trading days, evaluation time limit, funding route and number of evaluation stages shape the pace and structure of the challenge.

Trading permissions cover EAs and automated trading, news trading, weekend holding, copy trading and hedging. Each permission affects which strategies a trader uses in a programme. The analyst scores each permission from fully allowed to not allowed, with partial permissions in between. The score guide reference points below set 10 as fully allowed, 7 as allowed with minor limits, 4 as limited, whether the limit is approval, an add-on, some accounts or a restriction, and 0 as not allowed.

Rules components and weights

These measure how much room traders have to trade and how difficult the evaluation is. For example, the target-to-drawdown component compares the required profit with the amount the trader loses.

How we score each Rules component

We weigh the firm's published terms and our own account records to score Rules. Drawdown allowance is a percentage of the starting balance. For CFD, the market standard is 10%. For futures, it is 4%. A static floor counts as the most forgiving drawdown type. A floor that trails intraday equity with no stop counts as the least forgiving. We compare the profit target with the drawdown. We weigh permissions such as EAs, news trading, weekend holding, copy trading and hedging from fully allowed to not allowed, with partial permissions in between. A rule that applies to only some accounts in a programme family counts below a rule that applies to all of them.

The Payouts category covers profit splits, payout timing and withdrawal conditions.

Payouts Score (30% CFD, 25% Futures)

The Payouts category measures how a firm structures profit withdrawals and the conditions a trader meets before requesting a payout. The default profit split carries the largest weight for CFD firms, while for futures firms the required winning or qualifying days carries the most weight. Time to first payout and time between payouts measure how long a trader waits for the first withdrawal and for subsequent withdrawals. A shorter wait reduces the time before a trader accesses profits.

A funded or payout consistency rule limits how much of a payout-eligible profit comes from a single day, similar to an evaluation consistency rule. The minimum withdrawal amount sets the smallest sum a trader requests. For futures firms, a payout buffer requires the account to hold an amount above its starting level before profit is withdrawn. A per-payout cap limits how much is withdrawn in one request, and a lifetime payout cap sets an upper limit on total withdrawals.

Qualifying days are trading days that meet a minimum profit before a payout request. The components include the default and maximum profit split, time to first payout, and payout frequency. The how prop firms pay you page explains the stages a payout passes through, from the request to the money arriving.

Payouts components and weights

Futures puts more weight on whether traders actually access their profits: qualifying days, buffers and withdrawal limits.

How we score each Payouts component

We weigh the firm's published payout terms to score Payouts. The default split is the share with no add-on. For CFD, 80% is the market standard. For futures, 90% is the market standard. The maximum split includes add-ons and scaling. Time to first payout runs from the start of the funded account to the first possible request. Fourteen days is the market standard, and on-demand payouts score highest for time to first payout. For futures, we judge the payout buffer and per-payout cap as a percentage of the starting balance. A lifetime cap with a stated route to continue ranks above a hard cap.

The Costs category details evaluation fees, monthly funded-account fees and additional charges.

Costs Score (20% CFD, 30% Futures)

The Costs category measures the fees a trader pays to enter an evaluation, to reset a failed attempt and to trade. For CFD firms, the absolute entry fee in USD is the largest component. The entry fee relative to account size expresses the cost as a proportion of the account the trader is trying to access. Forex spreads are measured because wider spreads increase the trading cost on every position. The reset fee relative to entry fee shows how much a second attempt costs compared to the first. The fee refund policy records whether and how the entry fee is returned.

For futures firms, the minimum cost to first payout is the dominant component. Some futures evaluations are billed monthly until passed, while others are a one-off purchase. An activation fee is charged when a trader passes and moves to a funded account.

One-off versus recurring evaluation billing, monthly funded-account fees and additional data and platform fees are scored for futures firms only. These components capture the total cost a trader faces from sign-up through to a first payout. A blank field means the firm has not published that figure, or the price appears only inside a checkout we cannot read. The component is excluded from the weighted average. The how prop firms make money page explains the business model behind these costs.

Costs components and weights

For CFDs, only the absolute entry-fee component uses USD conversion. The entry-fee/account-size and reset-fee/entry-fee ratios retain the original currency.

For futures, minimum cost to first payout adds the evaluation fee, activation fee and applicable data, funded-account and platform charges. Recurring charges use the first-payout timing to estimate the required monthly periods.

How we score each Costs component

We weigh Cost components against the published reference points below. For CFD programmes, the cheapest full evaluation has a market standard of about 60 USD, and the fee at the 100,000 USD account has a market standard of about 0.55%. Spreads count only when the firm publishes a typical EUR/USD figure for spread plus commission. When a firm publishes none, we leave spreads out of the Costs score rather than guess them. We judge a programme with no reset like a reset at the full entry fee. A full refund with the first payout usually scores 10. For futures programmes, the minimum cost to first payout adds evaluation, activation, data, funded-account and platform charges. About 175 USD is the market standard. One-off billing ranks above monthly billing.

The Trading Access category measures tradable instruments, leverage and regional availability.

Trading Access Score (10% CFD, 5% Futures)

The Trading Access category measures the range of platforms, instruments and markets a trader uses, plus geographic availability. Platform choice is scored by the number of distinct platforms offered. For CFD firms, one platform scores 5, two score 7, three score 9 and four or more score 10. A wider platform choice lets a trader use familiar tools.

Number of tradable instruments and number of asset classes measure the breadth of the market access. Leverage is recorded for CFD firms. Regional availability checks which countries are eligible. A trader in a restricted region finds fewer firms available, and this component reflects that. The US prop firm eligibility guide compares documented US eligibility, platform restrictions and payout access for selected forex and futures prop services.

For futures firms, number of permitted accounts, route to live funding and scaling opportunities replace the instrument and asset-class components. The scaling opportunities component measures the ability to grow account size or contract limits over time, as explained on the scaling plans page.

Trading Access components and weights

How we score each Trading Access component

We weigh the firm's platform list, leverage settings and regional exclusions to score Trading Access. For CFD platform choice, one platform usually scores around 5, two around 7, three around 9, and four or more 10. For futures platform choice, two or three platforms is the market standard. Leverage of 1:50 to 1:100 scores highest. Regional availability is judged by how many countries a firm excludes. About 25 is the market standard. The analyst records the number of excluded countries from the firm's terms. For futures, a stated route to live funding and a published scaling plan score highest.

The final score is calculated from weighted category scores and a weak-category deduction.

How the Final Score Is Calculated

The calculation moves from component scores to category scores, then to a weighted total, a weak-category deduction, and finally the overall score rounded to one decimal place.

The calculation, step by step

1. Step 1: Analysts score each component out of 10, guided by the score guide.

   Analysts score each component out of 10 after researching the firm's published terms, the public record and our own account records. The score guide shows examples of how terms usually score at 10, 7, 4 and 1. For example, one CFD platform usually scores around 5, two around 7, three around 9, and four or more 10. The analyst weighs the whole picture. After this step, the weighting is fixed arithmetic.

2. Step 2: For Rules, Payouts, Costs and Trading Access, the category is a weighted average of its component scores. Trust is the exception.

   Category score = Σ(component score × weight) ÷ Σ(available weights)

   At least 70% of the component weight has usable scores. Otherwise, that category remains blank. Separate completeness checks still prevent an overall score. Trust is the exception, judged across its six factors without fixed weights.

3. Step 3: Programme-family scores are averaged equally within each firm.

   Trust is calculated at firm level. Each eligible family has the relevant category score before the firm-level category is produced. Fixed-odds session programmes are excluded.

4. Step 4: A weak programme caps Rules or Payouts.

   A score of 3/10 or below in Rules or Payouts for any eligible family caps the corresponding firm-level category at 6/10.

5. Step 5: A further weak-category penalty applies to the overall score:

   Lowest category = MIN(Rules, Payouts, Costs, Access)

   Deduction = MAX(0, 7 − Lowest category) × 4

   Final score = MAX(0, Weighted total − Deduction)

   For example, a lowest category of 5.5/10 deducts 6 points. Trust is not included in this particular penalty. The final score is rounded to one decimal place.

The scoring considerations below list the conventions every analyst follows when scoring a component.

Scoring Considerations

The table below lists the conventions every analyst follows when scoring any component across all categories. These conventions cover percentages, missing values, default terms and account types.

A worked example applies the methodology to a hypothetical firm.

Worked Example: From Component Scores to a Final Score

Step one: component scores to a category score

The table below shows a component-level example for a hypothetical CFD firm. Seven Payouts components with scores 7, 7, 7, 7, 10, 10 and 4 and weights 30, 5, 20, 15, 10, 5 and 15 combine to a Payouts score of 7.0.

Step two: category scores to the final score

The table that follows uses the Payouts score of 7.0 and the other category scores for the same hypothetical firm. The final score is shown under the CFD weights (65.0) and the futures weights (61.5).

Rating labels map final score ranges to descriptive ratings.

Rating Labels

The table below shows the label each firm receives based on its overall score.

The data section describes how firm data is gathered, recorded and verified.

How We Collect and Verify Data

Every value we score comes from a prop firm's own published terms, rules, help-centre pages, product pages and pricing pages, except for Trust data, which is drawn from Trustpilot and the public record. We do not estimate a figure that a firm has not made public. A price that appears only inside a checkout we cannot read is left blank rather than guessed. A blank is never treated as zero in the scoring.

Some firms embed their pricing as structured data in their own web pages. We read that embedded pricing data directly. This reduces transcription error and captures the exact figures a firm displays to a visitor.

Every firm record carries a last-verified date so a reader knows how fresh the data is. When only part of a record is re-checked, the last-verified date is updated only if the review names the parts that were checked. Selected programmes have programme-level records in which every field names its official source and its verification date. Six futures 50,000 USD programmes and two CFD two-step programmes were verified this way on 3 October 2026.

Every change to a firm record is logged with its date, the fields changed, the reason and the source. A new firm receives a full check of its published terms before its review is published. Trustpilot ratings and review counts are captured with a dated screenshot, and the capture date is shown with the screenshot. Figures a firm publishes about itself, such as its own total of rewards paid, are recorded as firm-reported and are not treated as independent evidence.

Corrections

When a firm or a reader reports a change, it is checked against the firm's own published terms before the record is updated. A claim that is not confirmed from the firm's own published terms is not applied. Corrections are sent through the contact page.

The evidence register below records the dated challenges the team bought, with screenshots on each firm's review.

Evidence Register

The evidence register is a dated set of account records with screenshots. Each record appears on that firm's review. The register currently lists four challenges bought by the team. The FundedNext record covers a Stellar 1-Step 25,000 USD challenge bought, with 10 trades placed and screenshots from October 2026. The BrightFunded record covers a 2-Step Original 25,000 USD challenge bought, started 13 April 2026, traded on 35 days and later breached. The FXIFY and Blueberry Funded records cover challenges bought but not traded. No payout record is listed yet, so no review claims a received payout.

The next section explains what the score does not measure: pass rates, likely earnings and whether a particular trader is paid.

What the Score Does Not Measure

The score does not measure pass rates, a trader's likely earnings, or whether a particular trader is paid. It assesses the published terms and public record at the last verification date. Terms change between checks, and a score reflects the information available at that point.

Trustpilot data comes from a third party and is subject to withdrawal or suppression by Trustpilot at any time. The score is general information about prop firms, not personal financial advice. A trader reads a firm's current terms before purchasing an evaluation.

A high score does not guarantee a positive experience. It indicates that a firm's published terms and public record scored well against the components described on this page. Traders consider their own strategy, risk tolerance and location before choosing a firm.

The scores are maintained by Noam Korbl, co-founder and COO. A second member of the editorial team checks each firm's scores before publication.

Who Maintains the Scores

The firm records and the scoring behind every ranking on BestPropFirms.com are maintained by Noam Korbl, co-founder and COO. The methodology is fact-checked by Justin Grossbard, co-founder and CEO. A second member of the editorial team checks each firm's category scores before they are published.

A reader who believes a recorded value is out of date reaches the team through the contact page.

Editorial independence explains that no firm pays to influence scores or rankings.

Editorial Independence

No prop firm pays for a better score or ranking on BestPropFirms.com. We apply the same methodology to every firm we review, regardless of any commercial relationship. The scoring record contains the same category checks for every firm, and the overall score is produced from those checks rather than from a negotiated position.

The site earns affiliate commission from some firms. That commission does not change the score, the weighting or the ranking order. A firm that pays us nothing is scored on the same terms as a firm that pays us, and we state that plainly because rankings are only useful if they cannot be bought.

Keeping Reviews Current

We update the site and reviews as firm terms change. Prop firms that stop operating, such as Fidelcrest and Vantage Elite Trader, are not listed in shortlists or educational materials. When a firm ceases operations or fundamentally changes its conditions, we update or remove its review from the rankings.

This principle of keeping old claims off the site matters for trust. Every record is dated, and changes to a firm’s dashboard or rules are reflected in the score rather than left to sit. Readers who spot data that needs updating contact us.

Version History

Methodology version 2.0 replaces version 1.0, which used seven categories (Challenges, Fees, Markets, Payouts, Platforms, Support and Trust) with weights described only in words. All scores were recalculated under the new model.

Frequently Asked Questions