Ranking Methodology
Every score on PropMason is the product of a 9-metric model built on publicly verifiable data. No firm can pay to improve their ranking. No affiliate link influences any score. This page documents every decision, weight, and formula used — fully auditable.
3 Composite Dimensions
In addition to the overall score (0–10), each firm is evaluated across three grouped dimensions. These sub-scores help traders quickly identify where a firm excels or underperforms.
Is this firm financially generous to its traders?
Profit Split (20%) + Evaluation Cost (11%)
Can I trust this firm's environment long-term?
Drawdown Model (20%) + Rule Consistency (4%) + Time in Operation (2%)
What does the community and track record say?
Trustpilot Rating (14%) + Time in Operation (2%)
The 9 Scoring Criteria
Weights total 100%. The "Algorithm Note" column shows the exact formula or rule used — this is the same logic running inside our scoring engine.
| Metric | Weight | Dimension | What We Measure | Algorithm Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Profit Split | 20% | Generosity | The effective profit share percentage a trader receives after passing evaluation. We apply a consistency-rule correction: if a firm has a consistency rule (e.g. 30%), the headline split is adjusted downward to reflect the real achievable split. A 90% headline + 30% consistency rule scores lower than a clean 90% with no rule. | D1: effectiveSplit = rawSplit − (consistencyRulePct × 0.25) |
| Drawdown Model | 20% | Stability | The risk environment a trader operates in: overall drawdown limit, daily drawdown limit, and how the limit is calculated (static vs trailing vs end-of-day). Trailing drawdowns are mathematically stricter than equivalent static limits, so we adjust our scoring accordingly. Futures firms with no daily drawdown limit receive a bonus — it is a design choice, not a data gap. | D2: trailing DD × 1.35 strictness factor. D4: no daily DD = +15pts bonus. |
| Trustpilot Rating | 14% | Reputation | Verified external social proof. A 4.8★ rating from 20 reviews is NOT equivalent to 4.8★ from 15,000 reviews — we apply confidence weighting using a logarithmic formula. A Trustpilot guideline breach (platform-verified manipulation) forces this metric to zero and triggers a separate 1.5pt penalty on the final score. | D3: score = baseScore × log₁₀(reviewCount+1) / log₁₀(50001). Floor: 0.80 for ≥1000 reviews at ≥4.0★. |
| Account Size Range | 13% | — | The minimum entry-level capital and maximum scalable capital available across all evaluation plans. Lower entry point = accessible to beginner traders. Wider maximum = long-term career potential. We score both dimensions independently then sum. | Three sub-components: range width, entry accessibility, maximum opportunity. |
| Evaluation Cost | 11% | Generosity | The evaluation fee relative to the account size it buys access to. A $100 fee for a $100,000 account (0.1% ratio) scores much better than $500 for a $5,000 account (10% ratio). We also reward firms with more price tiers, as variety helps traders find the right entry point. | Cost ratio bonus: avgPrice/maxAccountSize ≤ 0.001 earns +15pts. Tier count also scored. |
| Evaluation Structure | 11% | — | The evaluation complexity: fewer steps to funded account = better. Instant funding = top score. 1-step challenge scores higher than 2-step. Program variety (offering multiple structures) is also rewarded — traders with different styles need different paths. | Min steps scored + step variety + challenge type count. |
| Payout Speed | 5% | — | How quickly a trader can access their earned profits. On-demand and daily payouts score highest. Monthly payouts score significantly lower. Based on the firm's published payout policy — not trader testimonials. | On-demand=100, weekly=85, bi-weekly=70, monthly=50. |
| Rule Consistency | 4% | Stability | The clarity and trader-friendliness of the firm's trading rules. EA/expert advisor permission, scalping allowance, news trading policy, and weekend holding capability all contribute. Firms that explicitly document no consistency rule receive a bonus — it signals a more transparent, trader-first approach. | Permission richness base + per-permission bonuses + no-consistency-rule bonus. |
| Time in Operation | 2% | Stability / Reputation | The number of years a firm has been continuously operating. Longevity signals structural stability and brand credibility — an established firm has survived market cycles, payout stress tests, and regulatory pressure. 5+ years = maximum score. | Shared across Stability and Reputation sub-scores. ≥5 years = 100. |
Data Sources
All data is sourced from official firm terms of service pages, public Trustpilot listings, and verified trader testimonials. We do not accept firm-submitted data as a sole source. Every metric is reviewed quarterly by our editorial team. Crawl timestamps are logged and available for editorial review.
Penalty Engine
After the 9-metric score is computed, we apply post-calculation adjustments for hard integrity signals. These use only verified, enumerated data — never subjective assessment — and are always disclosed on the firm's score card.
| Trigger | Score Effect | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Firm flagged as SCAM | Score forced to 0.0 | critical |
| Firm under active integrity review | −1 pts | warning |
| Firm is closed / no longer operational | −0.5 pts | warning |
| Trustpilot guideline breach (platform-verified) | −4 pts | critical |
| Editorial: opacity pattern / low transparency | −0.3 pts | warning |
| Editorial: high transparency (bonus) | ＋0.2 pts | bonus |
Key Algorithmic Decisions
Every non-obvious scoring decision is documented below with its rationale. These decisions exist to prevent gaming, ensure fairness across firm types (forex vs futures), and surface the most accurate signal about each firm's real-world offer.
Some firms advertise headline profit splits of 80–90% but pair them with a consistency rule that restricts how the profit target can be reached. A 30% consistency rule means no single day can account for more than 30% of your total profit target — in practice this reduces the achievable split. We correct for this: effectiveSplit = rawSplit − (consistencyRulePct × 0.25). This prevents firms from gaming rankings with misleading headline numbers.
A 6% trailing drawdown is NOT equal to a 6% static drawdown from starting balance. Trailing drawdown follows your equity peak — once you profit, the floor rises. This makes it mathematically easier to be knocked out under similar conditions. We apply an effective strictness multiplier: trailing = ×1.35, balance-based = ×1.15, end-of-day = ×1.10, static = ×1.00. Scoring is based on effective drawdown strictness, not the raw percentage.
A 4.8★ Trustpilot rating from 8 reviews tells us almost nothing. The same rating from 12,000 reviews is highly meaningful. We apply a logarithmic confidence factor: confidenceFactor = log₁₀(reviewCount + 1) / log₁₀(50001). Final Trustpilot score = baseScore × confidenceFactor. Established firms (≥1,000 reviews at ≥4.0★) receive a confidence floor of 0.80 to avoid penalising well-known brands for having 'only' 1,000 reviews.
Many futures prop firms (e.g. Topstep, TradeDay, Apex Trader Funding) intentionally do not impose a daily drawdown limit. In earlier versions of our algorithm this appeared as missing data. From v2.1 onwards we treat the absence of a daily drawdown limit in futures-context as a positive signal: it gives traders intraday flexibility and is a deliberate design choice. This earns +15 points in the Drawdown Model score.
A firm needs at least 60% data completeness to receive a score. Below 60%, we display 'Insufficient Data' and exclude the firm from rankings. Completeness is weighted by metric importance — missing Profit Split (20% weight) is a larger completeness deduction than missing founding year (2% weight). This prevents poorly-documented firms from accidentally appearing well-ranked.
Scoring Changelog
- →[P0] ChallengeTier account sizes now hydrate Account Size Range and Evaluation Cost ratio
- →[P0] TradingPermissions, PayoutRules, and ConsistencyRule now hydrate D1 and Rule Consistency
- →[P0] Trailing drawdown now uses a strictness multiplier above 1.0 instead of reducing effective drawdown
- →[P0] Webhook scoring now persists zero scores and scoringVersion when data is insufficient
- →[P0] Penalty engine: SCAM (→0), UNDER_REVIEW (−1.0), CLOSED (−0.5), Trustpilot breach (−1.5)
- →[P0] Effective profit split: consistency rule correction applied (D1)
- →[P0] Trailing vs static drawdown interaction effect: trail multiplier 0.65 (D2)
- →[P1] 3 composite sub-scores exposed: Generosity, Stability, Reputation
- →[P1] Editorial transparency tier now affects score: high +0.2, low −0.3
- →[P1] ScoreResult expanded: penalties[], subScores, scoringVersion field
- →Full documentation pass — all decisions annotated for entity/transparency display
- →Removed 3 non-crawlable metrics: Instrument Coverage, Support Quality, Transparency Score
- →Trustpilot weight increased from 5% to 14% — verified external data is highest-confidence
- →Profit Split + Drawdown Model each raised to 20% (was 15%)
- →Futures-aware drawdown scoring: no daily DD = positive signal, not a data gap (D4)
- →Price-to-account-size ratio bonus added to Evaluation Cost scoring
- →Rule Consistency enriched: weekendHolding bonus, no-consistency-rule bonus
- →Initial 9-metric model launch with crawl-based data pipeline