What this index is
We score every active prop firm on 10 transparency markers. Each firm gets a single number out of 100. The same rules apply to every firm, and they're applied to information anyone can find online.
This page shows exactly how the scoring works. The markers, the cutoffs, the sources — all here. If you think a score is wrong, you can challenge it using the form below.
Because anyone can re-check the work. A trader, a journalist, another reviewer, or the firm being scored can apply the same rules and arrive at the same answer. When we disagree, the argument is about the data — not about whose opinion counts.
Why transparency matters
The prop firm industry has grown faster than its standards. Hundreds of firms compete for your evaluation fee. Most have hidden owners. Few face real oversight. Rule changes happen all the time, and they usually favor the firm.
Traders hand over money without knowing who runs the firm, where it's based, whether it actually pays out, or whether the rules they signed up for today will still apply tomorrow.
Most reviews look at features (account size, profit split, drawdown type) or success stories (people who got paid). Neither tells you whether the firm is honest about how it operates.
This index measures something different: how honest a firm is about itself. What they choose to tell you. How clear their rules are. Whether those rules change without warning. Whether what they say publicly matches what's in their fine print.
A firm can score 9/10 on transparency and still be wrong for you. A firm can score 3/10 and still pay you (for now). Transparency is one signal — important, but not the only one. We measure it because almost no one else does.
How we score
Where the data comes from
For each firm, we pull information from:
- The firm's public website — home, pricing, rules, refund, terms & conditions, privacy policy, about, FAQ pages
- Past versions of the firm's site via the Wayback Machine, to spot rule changes they didn't announce
- Trustpilot — review patterns, how they respond, what people complain about
- Government company records — Companies House, state-level filings, registries in whichever jurisdiction the firm claims
- Domain registration date for verifying rule stability and operating history
How the scoring runs
Every firm gets scored using the same rules. If a firm blocks automated scanning (some use Cloudflare to keep bots out), we collect the same information by hand — visiting the site personally, reading Trustpilot, and checking other public mentions.
Blocking automation doesn't lose them points. Only the actual transparency of what we find does.
What we publish per firm
For each firm, the index shows:
- The total score out of 100 and which band it falls into
- The score on each of the 9 markers, with the specific reason ("Pricing Clarity: 7/10 — main cost clear, minor fees disclosed but require digging")
- Which sources we used and when we last checked them
- The date the score was last verified
Nothing's hidden. If you think a score is wrong, you can see exactly how we got there — and challenge it using the form below.
The 9 markers
The 9 markers are grouped into 4 categories. Some matter more than others, so the weights differ. Everything adds up to 100 points.
Payout transparency — 30 pts
Public Payout Proof
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | Live dashboard or dedicated page showing payouts from the last 30 days, verifiable |
| 7–9 | Regular payout posts (weekly or monthly compilations, official social channels) |
| 4–6 | Occasional payout mentions, sporadic proof, mixed timeliness |
| 1–3 | Only old or dated payout proofs, nothing in the last 6 months |
| 0 | No public payout proof of any kind |
Pricing Clarity
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | All costs (eval, reset, monthly, withdrawal, scaling) on one page with no ambiguity |
| 7–9 | Main cost clear, smaller fees disclosed but require digging through T&C |
| 4–6 | Main cost clear but multiple additional fees hidden |
| 1–3 | Multiple hidden surcharges that only show up after you've paid |
| 0 | Misleading pricing, bait-and-switch, or structural costs that aren't disclosed at all |
Refund Policy Clarity
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | Dedicated refund policy page, clear conditions, stated processing time |
| 7–9 | Refund terms in T&C, easy to find, generally clear |
| 4–6 | Mentioned briefly, conditions vague or conditional |
| 1–3 | Only mentioned in FAQ or buried somewhere; conditions hidden |
| 0 | No refund policy stated anywhere |
Rules transparency — 35 pts
Rule Clarity
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | All rules in one place, given as specific numbers (e.g., "max 2% daily loss = $200 on a $10K account"), no judgment-call language |
| 7–9 | All rules listed, mostly specific, only minor ambiguities |
| 4–6 | Some judgment-call language ("excessive risk", "abusive trading", "at our discretion") |
| 1–3 | Rules spread across multiple pages, frequent ambiguity |
| 0 | Rules not clearly stated anywhere you can read before buying |
Rule Stability & Track Record
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 13–15 | No rule changes in past 12 months AND 3+ years operating with consistent identity |
| 9–12 | Minor clarifications only AND 1–3 years operating, OR established firm with limited history |
| 5–8 | One real change with notice but no grandfathering, OR multiple minor changes, OR under 1 year operating |
| 1–4 | Multiple changes affecting existing accounts in past 12 months, OR brand new with no track record |
| 0 | Recent change that retroactively disqualified customers or kept their funds |
Hidden-Rule Disclosure
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | All restrictive rules prominently disclosed before purchase on the rules or pricing page |
| 7–9 | Most disclosed prominently, 1–2 in fine print or FAQ only |
| 4–6 | Some disclosed before purchase, others only in T&C |
| 1–3 | Multiple restrictive rules hidden until after purchase |
| 0 | Major restrictive rules only show up once the account is active |
Company transparency — 20 pts
Ownership Disclosure
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | Named founders with verifiable LinkedIn or registry presence, full team listed, clear corporate registration |
| 7–9 | Named founders we can verify, limited team disclosure |
| 4–6 | Founders mentioned but we can't independently confirm they exist |
| 1–3 | Generic "team" page, no specific names |
| 0 | No team or ownership information of any kind |
Regulatory Clarity
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 10 | Full corporate disclosure (entity name, registration number, jurisdiction, regulatory status), and an explicit "we are a sim-trading firm" disclosure where applicable |
| 7–9 | Legal entity and jurisdiction disclosed, regulatory status implicit |
| 4–6 | Partial disclosure, ambiguity about what kind of entity this is |
| 1–3 | Generic location claims without any corporate detail |
| 0 | No legal entity or jurisdiction disclosed |
Customer-facing transparency — 15 pts
Affiliate Disclosure
| Score | What earns it |
|---|---|
| 15 | Clear affiliate disclosure (FTC-style) on every affiliate-related page; affiliate program publicly documented |
| 11–14 | Some affiliate disclosure but not consistent |
| 7–10 | Affiliate program exists, but the disclosure language is vague or buried |
| 3–6 | Almost no disclosure; affiliate relationships effectively hidden |
| 0 | Active affiliate scheme with no disclosure of any kind |
Score bands
We group total scores (0–100) into 4 bands for quick comparison. The actual number is what matters most — the bands just help you read at a glance.
What we don't measure
Saying what we don't measure is just as important as saying what we do. This index doesn't score firms on:
- Whether the firm actually pays. We score whether they publish proof of payments. Whether real customers got paid when they should have is covered separately in our firm reviews.
- Customer support quality. Response times, helpfulness, how disputes get handled. We test these case by case in our reviews, not by formula.
- How many traders pass. What percentage actually pass evaluations or reach payout. Some firms publish this; most don't. We report it when available but don't score it.
- Past complaints, lawsuits, or regulatory action. We track these in our firm reviews. We don't score them here because rules and oversight vary wildly by country.
- Trading platform quality. Broker partners, charting tools, execution speed, slippage. Important, but unrelated to transparency.
- Whether the firm fits your trading style. A rule set that's perfect for a scalper is wrong for a swing trader. That's a fit question, not a transparency question.
A high transparency score doesn't mean you'll do well at that firm. A low score doesn't mean you'll do badly. Use this index alongside our firm reviews, payout evidence, and your own homework.
Challenge a score
Think a score is wrong? Tell us. We review every submission and update the score publicly with a timestamp showing when it changed and why.
When to challenge
- The firm has published new information that should change the score
- A source we used was wrong or out of date
- The rubric was applied incorrectly to the data we have
- You have evidence we didn't have when we scored the firm
Submit a challenge
Fill in the form below. We'll get back to you at the email you provide. If you work for the firm being scored, please say so in the form — we publish that detail alongside our response.
Updates & versions
Re-scoring
We re-score all 189 active firms four times a year (January, April, July, October). Individual scores can be updated faster when something changes — a rule update, an ownership change, or a verified challenge from a reader.
Methodology versions
This page has version numbers. Big changes (new markers, weight changes, scoring criteria revisions) bump the major number (e.g. v2.0). Small changes (typo fixes, clarifications, new data sources) bump the minor number (e.g. v1.1). Older versions stay available so anyone can see what the rules were when a given score was assigned.
Version history
- v1.0 — 2026-06-07 — First publication. 9 markers, 89 firms in scope (V2 rubric — operating-history signal merged into Rule Stability & Track Record), quarterly update cadence committed.
The rankings are coming
Every active prop firm scored against this methodology, in one sortable table. Launching soon.
Browse firm reviews →