The site
Methodology
How the figures get here, how the transparency score is computed, and how this site is funded.
Where the figures come from
Every amount is read by hand from the firm's own pricing page, then recorded with its verification date and the exact URL it came from. Both appear beside each line in the calculator: if a date looks old to you, the link lets you check it yourself in ten seconds.
No figure is taken from another comparison site, a forum, or memory. A number we have not read at source ourselves does not enter the database.
What "not published" means
Some firms state a fee without ever publishing its amount — funded-account activation fees are the most common case. We do not estimate those amounts, and we do not drop them either.
Dropping a line whose amount is unknown would make the firm look cheaper than it is, and would move it up the ranking. So the line stays, marked "not published", and the total becomes a minimum, signalled by "≥".
The transparency score
The comparison's "Transparency" column is not an editorial rating: it is a score out of 10 computed from verifiable facts. Here is the complete formula, so that anyone can recompute it:
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Every stated fee carries a published amount — an amount we decline to convert (priced in a foreign currency) is not held against the firm; the criterion further requires that the evaluation and reset have been read, so that a thin entry cannot earn it by default | 3 |
| The evaluation price is published | 1 |
| The cost of a reset is published (or there is no paid reset) | 1 |
| Activation carries a published amount, including zero | 1 |
| The payout split is stated | 1 |
| The drawdown is end-of-day | 1 |
| No consistency rule during evaluation | 1 |
| Profit target and maximum drawdown are both given as figures | 1 |
A high score does not say a firm is "better". It says the firm publishes what you need in order to decide with your eyes open, and imposes few rules open to interpretation. It measures legibility, not quality — and it is deliberately a different choice from a hand-assigned mark out of 10, which no reader can check.
The ranking
The default sort is ascending price. No placement is for sale and no firm can pay to move up: the ordering is computed from the data, full stop. If a firm ever funds a promotion, it will be labelled as such and excluded from the sort.
How this site is funded
Every outbound link goes through an intermediate page, /go/<firm>, which states
before you leave whether the link is paid or not. There is no grey area: either a partnership exists
and the page says so, or none exists and the page says that too.
No link is affiliated today, so this site earns nothing. The day it does, that will change neither the price you pay, nor the promo code applied, nor the order of the ranking.
The calculation engine never receives the affiliate table: it cannot take it into account, even by accident. An automated test adds a paid link to every firm and checks that neither the totals nor the order move. Another forbids any outbound link written directly into a page. A promise of independence you cannot test is only a claim.
That funding model would carry an obvious bias — it would pay us when you buy an evaluation — which is why the counterweights below are in place before any of it is earned. The counterweight we impose on ourselves: publish the all-in cost rather than the headline price, keep the "not published" lines visible, and never present a prop firm as an investment.
Corrections
A wrong figure on this site is a bug, not an opinion. If you find one, the firm's page is what counts: report it and it will be corrected with a fresh verification date. Prices and promos in this business change monthly — a figure several weeks old should be re-checked at source before you buy.