How we rank and verify
Every number on PropsRadar comes from a firm's own published material. Nothing is estimated, nothing is paid for, and anything a firm does not publish stays blank.
The short version
Like with like
Challenges only compete with challenges, instant funding with instant funding.
Same terms, same score
No firm gets a bonus. Only the published terms count.
Gaps lower confidence
Missing details never move the score, they lower its confidence.
How the score works
A score from 0 to 100 measures how good an offer is for the trader buying it. Five weighted groups combine into one score, using only published terms.
Compare like with like
Challenges are scored against other challenges; instant funding against other instant funding offers. Firm averages stay separate for each type.
Same terms, same score
Identical terms earn the same score at any firm. Unpublished details lower confidence, not the score.
Score bands
80 to 100
60 to 79
40 to 59
0 to 39
The five scoring groups
How much each group counts. Tap a group or a bar segment to see what it checks.
Trading rules
Daily loss limits, drawdown size and type, minimum trading days, leverage, and what is allowed around news, weekends, bots and hedging.
27%
Trading rules
Daily loss limits, drawdown size and type, minimum trading days, leverage, and what is allowed around news, weekends, bots and hedging.
- Loss limits: we assess daily loss, total drawdown and minimum trading days. Static drawdown scores better than trailing drawdown.
- Daily breaches: a limit that only pauses trading scores close to having no daily limit. A daily limit as large as the total drawdown scores low, since one bad day can close the account.
- Trading freedom: news trading, weekend and overnight holding, bots, copy trading, HFT and hedging all count. “Limited” and “restricted” receive the same partial-restriction score.
- Extra restrictions: published consistency rules and position-size caps lower the score, because they can end an account even without a losing trade.
- Leverage: unpublished leverage is left out and lowers confidence instead. Futures accounts with published contract limits count as documented sizing, not missing data.
Payout terms
Profit split, payout frequency, first payout gate, minimum amount, processing time, and any buffer the firm keeps back.
27%
Payout terms
Profit split, payout frequency, first payout gate, minimum amount, processing time, and any buffer the firm keeps back.
- Getting paid: we assess the profit split, payout frequency, first-payout wait, minimum payout and processing time.
- Long-term terms: scaling plans, fee refunds, profit-split growth and whether the split can change later also count.
- Payout gates: profitable-day requirements, safety cushions, best-day rules and largest-loss rules lower the score when published.
Path to funding
Profit targets, number of steps, time limits and any progression stages before full capital.
18%
Path to funding
Profit targets, number of steps, time limits and any progression stages before full capital.
- Challenges: we assess each phase’s profit target, the number of evaluation steps and time limits.
- Instant funding: we assess the progression target, progression period and account lifetime. Skipping an evaluation gives no automatic bonus.
- Separate comparisons: each offer is ranked only against others of the same product type.
Counterparty risk
Whether the account is simulated, on real markets or onchain, and how payouts actually settle.
15%
Counterparty risk
Whether the account is simulated, on real markets or onchain, and how payouts actually settle.
- Trading environment: real-market and onchain venues score highest, hybrid models sit in between, and simulated environments score lowest for payout risk.
- Transparency: clear order flow and verifiable payout settlement improve the score.
- Market selection: more published asset classes score higher. One asset class scores lowest; an unpublished selection is left out.
Cost
Entry price per $1,000 of buying power, compared only with offers of the same product type.
13%
Cost
Entry price per $1,000 of buying power, compared only with offers of the same product type.
- Value for money: entry price is measured against funded capital and usable drawdown.
- Peer comparison: cheaper offers score higher, compared only with the same product type.
- No sale-price boost: rankings use the standard price, never a temporary promotion.
The same hypothetical offer illustrates every section on this page. See the worked example below
Missing data & confidence
Every firm documents its terms differently. Here is how the gaps are handled so a thin rulebook can never look better or worse than it is.
- Blanks, not guesses
- A dash means the firm does not publish that condition. We never fill a gap with an industry average, and a missing value lowers confidence rather than moving the score either way.
- Published restrictions
- Consistency rules and risk caps lower the score when a firm publishes them. They are ignored when the firm does not say.
- Verification date
- How recently we checked a firm appears as a badge. It never changes the score.
Low confidence
When confidence drops below 30% we show no score at all rather than guessing, so heavily undocumented offers never look artificially good or bad.
Unpublished details never move the score. See what stays unknown in the example
Sources & independence
How the data behind every number is collected, and what keeps the rankings independent.
Official sources first
- Every figure is copied from the firm's own website, rulebook, FAQ or terms.
- Each value keeps the page it came from and the date we last checked it. Every offer and firm page carries a verification mark that opens the source.
- When a firm's own documents disagree, we flag the conflict on the record instead of picking a side.
No paid rankings
- Firms cannot buy a place, a rank or a score.
- Promotions are recorded where a firm runs one, but rankings always use the standard price, so a temporary sale cannot move a firm up the list.
Rankings use standard prices and recorded sources. See how the example is checked
Worked example: a hypothetical challenge
Hypothetical exampleImagine a firm publishes a one-step, $100,000 challenge for $500. The same offer follows us through the sections below. These are illustrative terms, not a real firm or a calculated score.
01How its terms are scored
- Trading rules
Terms: 5% daily loss limit, 10% static drawdown, 30x leverage and a published consistency rule.
Effect: Static drawdown and available leverage help. The consistency rule works against the offer, because it adds a condition for keeping the account.
- Payout terms
Terms: 80% profit split and payouts every 14 days. Processing time is not published.
Effect: The split and payout schedule are assessed as published. A higher split or more frequent payouts would improve this group; the missing processing time is left out.
- Path to funding
Terms: One evaluation step, an 8% profit target and no time limit.
Effect: Fewer steps and no deadline help. The target still counts toward difficulty. This is a challenge score, not an instant funding score.
- Counterparty risk
Terms: Simulated trading with forex, crypto and indices. Payout settlement is not documented.
Effect: Simulation scores below real-market or onchain execution. Three asset classes score better for market selection than one; missing settlement details are left out.
- Cost
Terms: $500 standard entry fee for $100,000 of capital and $10,000 of usable drawdown.
Effect: That is $5 per $1,000 of capital. Cost is benchmarked against other challenges, so the fee alone cannot tell us whether this offer is cheap or expensive.
The five groups combine using the weights above. Helpful terms and published restrictions both count. An exact score needs the full published terms and the current challenge price benchmark, so we do not invent one here.
02What stays unknown
- Processing time and payout settlement stay blank. They contribute neither a zero nor a bonus; the score uses the known inputs instead.
- Those gaps lower data confidence. The published consistency rule is different: it is a known restriction, so it affects the score.
- If documentation becomes too sparse and confidence falls below 30%, no score is shown. Firm averages keep this challenge separate from instant funding offers.
03Checking the evidence
- The fee comes from the firm’s pricing page; loss limits and the target from its rulebook; the split and schedule from its payout terms. Each recorded figure keeps its source and check date.
- If the pricing page temporarily advertises $400, the ranking still uses the $500 standard fee. A new verification date does not improve the score either.
- If the FAQ contradicts the rulebook, the conflict is flagged rather than silently choosing a figure. Another firm publishing identical terms receives the same score under the same benchmark.