1. Who we are
MyPropGenius is an independent prop firm review and comparison platform built by traders who got tired of comparison sites that wouldn't tell them what was actually wrong with the firms being recommended.
The prop trading industry has produced hundreds of firms over the past five years. Many are credible. Many are not. The problem is that distinguishing between the two has been outsourced to affiliate aggregators whose commercial incentives discourage honest negative coverage. Closed firms get quietly removed from listings. Trustpilot guideline-breach flags don't get mentioned. Surprise rules at payout time don't get documented. Reddit complaint patterns don't get surfaced. Founder and CEO ambiguity doesn't get noted.
We exist to fill that gap with editorial that names problems — including problems with firms we have commercial relationships with. The full disclosure on those relationships is in Section 5 below.
MyPropGenius is not owned by, affiliated with, or operated by any prop firm, broker, or trading group. We are an independent publisher.
2. What we cover
Our coverage focus is every prop firm with meaningful trader presence — active or shut down. As of this update, our database contains:
(5,000–6,000 words each)
The 68 closed firms break down as 65 confirmed shutdowns, 1 currently suspended, and 2 under active investigation by us for trader complaints we have not yet been able to resolve through firm response. We track closed firms specifically because the prop industry has a high attrition rate, and the failure history of related entities (founders, parent groups, payment processors) is often the most predictive signal of future failure.
New firms are added monthly. In-depth reviews are added in batches as research is completed.
3. Why we exist
The dominant prop firm comparison sites operate as affiliate aggregators. They earn commissions when traders click through and purchase challenges. This is a legitimate business model — it is also the model we use, and we explain that openly in Section 5.
The structural problem with the dominant model is not the affiliate revenue itself. It is the editorial silence that affiliate revenue tends to produce. A site that earns commissions from 50+ firms cannot easily publish a 5,000-word review that recommends caution on one of those firms, document a Trustpilot guideline-breach flag against another, or maintain a public list of closed firms whose founders are now operating new prop arms under different brands. The commercial incentive points toward listing more firms with more enthusiasm, not toward telling traders which ones to avoid.
That gap is where we sit. We publish detailed editorial on individual firms — including critical editorial on firms we earn commissions from — because we believe the long-term value of being trusted by traders exceeds the short-term value of any single commercial relationship. Our reviews regularly cover firms with documented friction points: Goat Funded Trader at 3.4/5 with the Trustpilot guideline-breach flag and Goat Guard auto-close mechanic, BrightFunded at 4.2/5 with Trustpilot's removed fake reviews and the disputed unilateral 1% daily restriction on funded accounts, Klein Funding at 4.6/5 with the documented Trustpilot review-authenticity concerns, Blueberry Funded at 4.3/5 with the "Toxic Trading" clause friction and weekend gap stop-loss disputes. These are honest assessments published on commercial partners.
4. Methodology
This is how we evaluate prop firms. The process is the same regardless of whether we have a commercial relationship with the firm being reviewed.
The rating scale
Every firm we review receives a MyPropGenius rating between 1.0 and 5.0. The rating is a single composite score reflecting our editorial assessment across operating history, payout volume, Trustpilot reputation, terms-of-service clarity, regulatory transparency, founder/CEO transparency, dispute resolution patterns, and overall trader experience as documented across multiple sources.
| Rating | What it means |
|---|---|
| 4.6 – 5.0 | Top-tier. Strong on operating history, documented payout volume, Trustpilot reputation, terms clarity, and dispute resolution. Suitable as a primary firm for most traders. |
| 4.0 – 4.5 | Strong. Meaningful structural strengths balanced against documented friction points worth understanding before purchase. Suitable as a primary or rotation firm depending on fit. |
| 3.5 – 3.9 | Cautious. Structurally functional with documented friction — Trustpilot flags, surprise rule disputes, terms-of-service gaps, or unproven track record. Better suited as a secondary rotation account than a primary firm. |
| Below 3.5 | We rarely publish in-depth reviews on firms scoring below this threshold. We typically classify them as "investigating" or "closed" rather than rating them numerically. |
What we evaluate
Our in-depth reviews follow a consistent 16-section structure covering: firm background and operating history, evaluation programmes and pricing, profit splits and payout mechanics, drawdown rules, trading rules and restrictions, Trustpilot reputation profile (including any platform flags), competitor comparison, pros, cons, who the firm fits, who should avoid it, FAQ, and a final verdict. This structure is the same across every review so traders can compare firms on identical criteria.
Our sources
- Firm-published material — terms of service, FAQ, rules pages, account specifications, and pricing as published by the firm itself
- Trustpilot — overall rating, review volume, sentiment patterns, and platform-issued flags or warnings (guideline breaches, removed reviews)
- Public trader discussion — manual monitoring of major prop firm subreddits (r/propfirms, r/Forex, r/Daytrading, r/preopfirm, r/algotrading and others) for complaint patterns, surprise-rule disputes, and sentiment trends that Trustpilot's verification model excludes
- Third-party trackers — PropFirm Tracker, Best Prop Firms (BPF), DealPropFirm, Trader Union, PropFirms.com, and other independent industry trackers, used for cross-verification of stated payout figures and trader counts
- Industry coverage — Finance Magnates, FinanceFeeds, and other trade publications for partnership announcements, regulatory actions, and major operational changes
- Founder and CEO public communications — Discord messages, X posts, podcast interviews, and direct firm announcements
- Reader corrections and submissions — flagged via the contact channels in Section 7
We cross-reference at least three independent sources before publishing any specific factual claim about a firm. Where sources disagree, we note the disagreement in the review rather than picking one source silently.
The review process
A multi-source research pass covering firm-published terms, Trustpilot patterns, Reddit complaint history, third-party tracker data, and industry coverage. Findings are documented before any draft is written.
A 5,000–6,000 word review is written against the canonical 16-section structure. Every factual claim must trace to a source from the research pass. The draft includes both strengths and friction points.
Structured data, ratings, and cross-references are validated automatically. Sources are double-checked. The review is read end-to-end for tone consistency and balance.
The review is published with the date of last update. The firm is notified. We do not delay publication for firm response — but we do correct any factual errors the firm flags within 48 hours, with a public correction note.
Reviews are refreshed quarterly at minimum, and immediately when a firm makes a material rule change, faces regulatory action, gets a new Trustpilot platform flag, suspends operations, or shuts down.
Firm classification
- Active — operating normally with no documented suspension or major dispute pattern
- Investigating — accumulating complaints we have not yet been able to resolve through firm response or independent verification
- Suspended — temporary halt on operations confirmed by the firm or by industry coverage
- Closed — confirmed permanently shut down. We retain closed-firm reviews specifically to document the failure for traders researching related entities (founders, parent groups, payment processors operating under new brands)
What we are building next
Two pieces of infrastructure are in active development to deepen our editorial operation:
- The Transparency Index — a manually-scored index covering regulatory transparency, founder identity disclosure, payout volume disclosure, Trustpilot platform-flag status, closure history of related entities, terms-of-service clarity, dispute resolution mechanism, and rule-change tracking. The Index will be published with full methodology and updated monthly.
- Automated Reddit monitoring — a tracking layer across the major prop firm subreddits with two-tier complaint detection (broad mention sweep plus narrow complaint-signal classification) and firm-name canonical mapping to handle aliases and misspellings. Output will surface complaint-volume trends per firm and trigger our internal review-refresh queue when thresholds are crossed.
Both are expected to launch during 2026.
5. Commercial relationships
The disclosure, in plain language
We may have commercial relationships with any of the firms we review. This is how we fund the editorial work, the infrastructure, and the team behind MyPropGenius. Our reviews are free to read because the firms — not the readers — pay us when traders click through and purchase challenges.
Commercial relationships do not influence our editorial. We do not accept payment for higher rankings, more favourable reviews, the suppression of negative content, or removal from our "investigating" or "closed" classifications.
The proof is in the reviews themselves
Several of our commercial partners receive ratings that explicitly recommend caution. Goat Funded Trader at 3.4/5 — published with the documented Trustpilot guideline-breach flag, the Goat Guard 2% floating-loss auto-close that cuts splits to 50% on first trigger, and the first-two-payout 6% cap that's not prominently disclosed pre-purchase. BrightFunded at 4.2/5 — published with Trustpilot's removed fake reviews, the disputed unilateral 1% daily restriction documented on funded accounts, and the "high-risk trading" account ban patterns. Klein Funding at 4.6/5 — published with the documented Trustpilot review-authenticity concerns and the under-one-year operating history. Blueberry Funded at 4.3/5 — published with the "Toxic Trading" clause 12.2/12.3 termination friction and the weekend gap stop-loss execution disputes.
None of these honest assessments cost us those affiliate relationships, and that is the point. If a firm asks us to remove documented friction in exchange for continued partnership, we end the partnership rather than the documentation.
Two specific commitments
If a firm is included in our "closed" or "investigating" classifications, we do not accept affiliate revenue from them under any circumstance, regardless of any prior or potential commercial relationship.
We do not accept paid editorial. This means: no sponsored reviews written to a firm's specifications, no marketing-team-supplied content presented as our own assessment, and no arrangement that requires us to remove published criticism in exchange for ongoing commercial terms.
6. What we will not do
The guardrails below apply across all editorial. They are non-negotiable regardless of commercial pressure.
- We will not accept payment for higher rankings or placement. Our ratings reflect editorial assessment, not commercial tier.
- We will not remove or suppress negative reviews of partner firms. Documented friction stays documented.
- We will not accept paid editorial or sponsored content presented as independent review.
- We will not delist a firm from our "closed" or "investigating" classification for commercial reasons.
- We will not feature firms whose terms we cannot verify in writing. If a firm's published rules are vague to the point we cannot describe them, we say so explicitly in the review.
- We will not invent affiliate-friendly framing. If we describe a firm as "the cautionary pick of the 2026 lineup," that is the framing we publish, regardless of whether the firm pays us.
- We will not run hidden affiliate links. Where we link to a prop firm, we mark the link with our referral code visibly when applicable.
7. Corrections and contact
If you spot a factual error in a review, we want to know. Reviews are corrected within 48 hours of verified submission, with a public correction note where the change is material. The same channel handles new firm submissions, rule-change tips, trader experience reports, and press inquiries.
- Corrections and submissions: use the form on our contact page
- Trader experiences (positive or negative): we read every email and use submissions in our quarterly review refreshes
- Press and partnership inquiries: via the contact page, with "Press" or "Partnership" in the subject line
If you are a prop firm representative wanting to flag a factual issue, the same channel applies. We respond to good-faith correction requests quickly. We do not respond to requests to remove documented friction points or to delay scheduled review updates.