Review Methodology · v2.2
Our methodology is the single artifact that makes a review either useful or worthless. This page documents — in full — what we measure, how we weight it, and how we keep affiliate revenue out of the rating.
The framework
Every firm we review is scored on six dimensions. The weights below are for the CFD/Forex rubric — the dominant category we cover. Futures, crypto, sports prop, and prediction markets each use a tuned version of this framework, published alongside their respective category rankings.
The final score is a weighted average, expressed on a 0–10 scale, subject to the four hard caps below. We do not round generously. A 9.0 means a firm is materially stronger than an 8.5 on at least one weighted dimension, not “we like them more.”
Hard limits
Trader sentiment is not the same thing as a track record. Star ratings cannot see how old a firm is, whether its terms are published, or whether the capital is real. These four caps exist so a well-marketed new firm cannot out-score a firm that has actually paid traders for years.
A firm under a year old has no payout track record to rate, no matter how good its reviews are. We cap the payout dimension at 6.5 until there are 12 months of verifiable payouts. Enthusiasm about a new firm’s transparency is not evidence that it pays.
If a trader cannot find the challenge fee, the profit target, or the drawdown limit without submitting an application, transparency is capped at 5.0. Requiring a sales call to learn the price is a deliberate choice, and we score it as one.
New firms can have excellent rules and fast early payouts. They cannot have proven they will still be paying next year. A 7.0 ceiling in year one is not a criticism, it is an accuracy limit. Firms move above it by surviving and paying.
The top of our scale is reserved for firms with a multi-year record of paying traders through varied market conditions. This keeps 8.5+ meaningful instead of becoming the default for any firm without obvious problems.
Where a cap applies, we say so in the review. A capped score is a statement about what can be verified today, not a prediction that the firm will fail. Caps are re-checked on the same 30-day cycle as everything else, and a firm that clears the underlying condition has the cap lifted.
The process
Every firm on this site goes through the same five steps. No shortcuts.
We purchase the firm’s standard evaluation product at the public retail price, on a new account, with no firm contact. If the firm offers multiple tracks, we buy the most popular one — supplemented by the lowest- and highest-tier products if their rules materially differ.
We trade the challenge to one of three outcomes: pass to funded, hit a rule limit, or document a structural problem that justifies stopping early. We log every fill, every spread, every support interaction. Our test traders are real funded traders, not interns reading a checklist.
Every rule, fee, and figure that appears in a review is cross-referenced against the firm’s published terms — not their marketing pages. When the terms and the marketing diverge, we cite the terms and note the discrepancy.
The reviewer scores each of the five dimensions independently. A second editor reviews the scores, flags anything that looks generous or harsh, and signs off. Only then does the review go live with a public score.
Once a review is published, it enters our re-audit queue. Every published review is re-checked on a 30-day cycle against the firm’s current terms. If a rule has changed, we update the review and stamp the change date at the top.
Exclusions
We exclude firms that, at the moment of audit, exhibit any of the following structural problems. Inclusion in our directory is not endorsement, but exclusion is a hard signal we cannot vouch for the firm.
A firm can move out of exclusion by addressing the underlying issue — published terms, a payout track record, a regulatory resolution. The next monthly audit cycle re-evaluates the firm against the same rubric every other firm faces.
Conflict of interest
PropFirmReviews earns affiliate commissions from some firms we rank. This is the dominant business model in the review-publication industry, and pretending otherwise would itself be a form of dishonesty. What matters is whether the commission affects the rating.
Our structural answer:
If you find a case where you believe our methodology has been compromised — score inflation, missing disclosure, suppressed criticism — write to us via the contact form. We treat methodology integrity as the only asset this site has.
Public changelog
Increased weight on rule architecture from 25% to 30% in response to a wave of mid-cycle drawdown rule changes across the CFD/Forex category.
Introduced separate rubrics for sports prop and prediction markets. Removed “Marketing claims” as a scored dimension — folded into Support & transparency.
Added payout-cadence verification step. Locked all reviewer access to commission rates.
Initial public methodology. Five dimensions, monthly re-audit cycle, fixed exclusion list.
Every change to the scoring rubric is dated, versioned, and visible here. No silent edits. The version stamp on each review tells you which rubric was used.
We treat methodology criticism as one of the most valuable forms of contact this site receives. If something here is wrong or unclear, tell us.