Every score in our prop firm comparison comes from the same six criteria, weighted by how much each one affects whether a trader is paid. This page explains the method in full.
The six criteria
- Rules at payout (25%). Consistency rule, minimum trading days and first-payout conditions on the funded account. These are the rules that hold back or deny payout requests, so they carry the most weight.
- Drawdown design (20%). Static, trailing or end-of-day maximum loss, where a trailing limit locks, and the size and reset time of the daily loss limit.
- Payout reliability (20%). The published processing promise, any penalty if it is missed, the payout cycle and the payment methods offered.
- Cost (15%). Evaluation fee, fee refund (percentage, timing, cash or credit), free retries and resets.
- Strategy freedom (10%). News trading, weekend holding, EAs, minimum holding times, hedging and copy trading, at both the evaluation and funded stages.
- Transparency (10%). How complete and consistent the public rulebook is before purchase.
Sources
We use only the firm’s own public pages: website, FAQ, help centre, terms and checkout configurator. We quote rules as published and date every check. Figures in the current tables were checked on 3 September 2026; Meridian Funded was re-checked on 21 September 2026.
What we do not do
- We do not publish star ratings collected from users.
- We do not sell positions in the ranking.
- We do not fill a gap with an assumption: an unpublished rule is shown as “not published”.
Scores and ranking
Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5, weighted, and rounded to one decimal. Where two firms tie, the one with the stronger payout-stage rules ranks higher. Scores are editorial judgments built on published facts; they are not a guarantee of any outcome, and trading involves risk.
Last updated 21 September 2026.