The 24 silences: what 13 prop firms leave blank, and where

Twenty-four blanks in 433 lines

The record behind this comparison covers 13 firms, 144 accounts and 433 fee lines, taken from the firms’ own pages and dated 16 August 2026. Of those 433 lines, 24 carry no amount: the firm names the charge and leaves the figure out.

The 24 are not scattered. They fall on two line items only — 14 on activation, 10 on the data feed — and on three firms: Apex Trader Funding, My Funded Futures and Bulenox. Not one of them falls on the evaluation price.

One count is kept separate on purpose. 4 further amounts are missing because we have not recorded them, not because a firm withheld them. That reservation is ours, and it is evidence about our backlog rather than about anybody’s pricing. Folding the two together would inflate an opacity figure with our own gaps.

Activation is free on 109 of the 121 priced lines

This is the figure that changes the shape of the problem. Activation appears with a number on 121 lines, ranging from $0 to $149, and 109 of those 121 are declared free. The fee is not a wall in front of every funded account: where it is stated at all, it is overwhelmingly stated as nothing.

So the 14 blanks cannot be read as “there is no activation fee here”. That reading is already taken: it has a spelling in this record, the amount zero, and firms use it 109 times. Every one of the 13 firms carries an activation line somewhere in the record; not one leaves the item out altogether. A blank is therefore not a firm that never charges activation. It is a firm that carries the charge and does not say what it costs.

What that blank could be worth is bracketed on one side by the rest of the record: no activation line anywhere in it exceeds $149. A bracket is not an answer. The line-by-line version is on the activation fees hub, and the term itself is in the glossary.

A blank line and a missing line are different objects

Not every empty-looking cell is a silence. 68 of the 144 accounts carry no reset line at all, while the 76 lines that are priced run from $40 to $599. 67 of the 144 carry no consistency rule; where one exists it is 20, 30, 40, 45, 50 %. 79 of the 144 carry no daily loss limit.

None of those is one of the 24, and they should not be read the same way. A line that is not there means the record has nothing to show for it, and the firm guide behind each figure is where that gets checked. A line that is there with the amount removed means the firm named a charge and stopped. The first can be verified against a source; the second has no source to verify against, which is what makes it a silence.

Why a holed price sheet reads as a floor

Fees add, and every amount in this record runs from zero upward. A blank can therefore only push a total up, never down. The consequence is arithmetic rather than editorial: for the three firms that carry blanks, any total built from these lines is a lower bound. It is the price of the part that was published.

Two firms whose totals land level are not level if one published every line it announced and the other left an item without a figure. The gap is not visible in the total, and not recoverable from it. For activation the record at least puts a ceiling on what is missing, at $149. For the data feed it states no range at all, so a blank there is a charge the firm confirms exists and this data cannot cap.

Every figure here comes from the same dated record as the real cost calculator and the thirteen firm guides; the method is set out separately.

Three names, against a record that is otherwise filled in

The 24 stand out because the rest of the sheet is dense. The billing model is stated throughout: 38 lines are billed monthly and 106 in a single payment, 6 firms bill by the month and 10 in one go, and 3 do both — three houses in all, the only ones where a comparison between the two models stays inside one house. Drawdown type, over the 144 accounts: 118 end of day, 23 trailing, 3 static. 13 firms publish a profit split, at 80, 90, 95 or 100%.

Against that background, silence on two items looks less like a house style than like a decision about two specific lines. It also compounds with what the record already asks a reader to track for the same names. My Funded Futures appears in three of these counts at once: it carries unpublished amounts, it bills both by the month and in a single payment, and it is one of the 3 firms whose drawdown type changes once the account is funded, alongside Funded Futures Network and Take Profit Trader. Each of those is answerable from the firm’s own pages. The unpublished amounts are the one item on that list that is not.

The practical form is unchanged: at a comparable headline price, prefer the firm whose total you can finish calculating. The other one is asking to be chosen before the price is known.

What this record does not say

It does not say what the 24 blanks are worth. Nothing here is estimated to fill them.
It does not say why they are blank. A silence is a fact about a page, not a motive, and nothing in this data separates a charge set by a third party from one that is simply not written down.
It does not divide the 24 between the three names. The counts that exist are 14 on activation and 10 on the data feed, over Apex Trader Funding, My Funded Futures and Bulenox together.
It states no range for the data feed, so the ceiling that exists for activation at $149 has no equivalent there.
It is a reading dated 16 August 2026: a blank filled in next week is a different record, known here only at the next pass.
And it says nothing about service quality or payouts. 24 unpublished amounts is a fact about what a buyer can compute before paying, which is a narrower claim than it is often made to carry.

Figures as of August 16, 2026, recomputed on every data update. Methodology