Transparency Index report
State of Prop Firm Transparency: October 2026
We scored 192 prop firms on how openly they explain themselves on their own websites. 64 are Good, 127 Mixed and 1 Poor; none is Excellent. The median score is 56 out of 100 and the mean is 55.8.
- 192 firms scored
- 56 median score
- 64 Good
- 0 Excellent
What this is
This is the first report on the MyPropGenius Transparency Index under evidence standard v1.4. Firms were checked on 10–11 October 2026. Firms whose websites we could not read at all are not scored.
Scores come from each firm's own website and help centre, with the earliest Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) copy of its homepage for operating history and UK Companies House to verify companies and people the firm names. Where a marker is scored from absence, the evidence says so. We do not use review sites, social media or news.
These scores are not comparable with earlier versions of the index, which used other sources and less strict rules. For the 77 firms scored under both v1.3 (June 2026) and v1.4, the v1.4 score is on average 11.7 points lower (median 12 points lower). The methodology explains why.
This report is the baseline. We aim to re-score every firm four times a year. The next report, after the January 2027 re-score, will compare like with like.
Score distribution
Scores run from 38 to 75 out of 100. 64 firms (33%) are Good, 127 (66%) Mixed and 1 (1%) Poor. The bands are 80–100 Excellent, 60–79 Good, 40–59 Mixed, 0–39 Poor.
No firm reached Excellent (80 or more); the highest score is 75. The top band of Rule Stability & Track Record (13–15) is not awarded yet, so the highest possible score is currently 97.
Show the numbers as a table
| Score | Firms |
|---|---|
| 0–9 | 0 |
| 10–19 | 0 |
| 20–29 | 0 |
| 30–39 | 1 |
| 40–49 | 42 |
| 50–59 | 85 |
| 60–69 | 55 |
| 70–79 | 9 |
| 80–89 | 0 |
| 90–100 | 0 |
Marker by marker
The score is the sum of 9 markers. This chart shows the average score on each marker as a share of its maximum points.
| Marker | Max points | Average | Average as % of max | Full marks | Scored 0 | Not found |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Payout Proof | 10 | 4.8 | 48% | 6% (12) | 9% (17) | 8% (16) |
| Pricing Clarity | 10 | 6.6 | 66% | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 3% (5) |
| Refund Policy | 10 | 5.8 | 58% | 0% (0) | 2% (3) | 9% (17) |
| Rule Clarity | 10 | 4.4 | 44% | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 1% (1) |
| Rule Stability & Track Record | 15 | 9.2 | 61% | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 21% (41) |
| Hidden-Rule Disclosure | 10 | 6.2 | 62% | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 3% (6) |
| Ownership Disclosure | 10 | 3.7 | 37% | 1% (2) | 2% (4) | 7% (13) |
| Regulatory Clarity | 10 | 7.5 | 75% | 16% (30) | 1% (1) | 1% (1) |
| Affiliate Disclosure | 15 | 7.6 | 51% | 0% (0) | 0% (0) | 21% (40) |
Shares are of all 192 firms, with the number of firms in brackets. Percentages are rounded to whole numbers. On small screens the maximum points and average columns are hidden; the maximum for each marker is given below.
Not found means the score rests, at least in part, on something we looked for on the firm's own pages and could not find. Our evidence labels these “not found on the pages we read”. It is not the same as a score of 0: a firm with no affiliate programme on its pages scores 10 of 15 on Affiliate Disclosure, and a firm with no operating-history data scores 6 of 15 on Rule Stability & Track Record.
Payout Proof (10 points)
144 of 192 firms (75%) show payout totals, undated payout lists or testimonials, but not dated payout records (score 4–6). 17 of 192 firms (9%) show no payout proof on the pages we read (score 0).
Pricing Clarity (10 points)
106 of 192 firms (55%) make the main cost clear but leave smaller fees to the terms and conditions (score 7–9). None of the 192 firms put every cost on one page with no ambiguity (score 10).
Refund Policy (10 points)
3 of 192 firms (2%) have no refund policy on the pages we read (score 0). 88 of 192 firms (46%) mention refunds only briefly or vaguely, or make conflicting refund statements across their pages (score 4–6).
Rule Clarity (10 points)
148 of 192 firms (77%) scored 4–6 on Rule Clarity, the band for rules that are written down but include some judgement-call wording such as "excessive risk", "abusive trading" or "at our discretion". None of the 192 firms give every rule in one place as specific numbers, with no judgement-call wording (score 10).
Rule Stability & Track Record (15 points)
58 of 192 firms (30%) have 3 or more years of operating history and no deductible rule changes (score 12). 7 of 192 firms (4%) scored 1–4 on Rule Stability & Track Record, which means we recorded at least one announced change affecting existing accounts, or a sales pause, in the past 12 months. The top band (13–15) is not awarded under this standard, so 12 of 15 is the most a firm can score; 12 is the highest any firm received.
Hidden-Rule Disclosure (10 points)
98 of 192 firms (51%) state some commonly missed rules before purchase but leave others to the terms and conditions (score 4–6). None of the 192 firms state all restrictive rules clearly on their rules or pricing page (score 10).
Ownership Disclosure (10 points)
123 of 192 firms (64%) give little ownership detail (score 1–3): at most a company or trading name, with no owners or founders named. 5 of 192 firms (3%) name owners or founders that we could verify on UK Companies House (score 8–10).
Regulatory Clarity (10 points)
30 of 192 firms (16%) state their entity, registration number, jurisdiction and regulatory status, with a "simulated trading / not a broker" statement where it applies (score 10). 105 of 192 firms (55%) state their legal entity and jurisdiction but leave their regulatory status implicit (score 7–9).
Affiliate Disclosure (15 points)
10 of 192 firms (5%) document an affiliate programme and require affiliates to disclose the relationship (score 13–15). 45 of 192 firms (23%) scored 4–6 on Affiliate Disclosure: we found an affiliate programme but not its terms on the pages we could read.
Leaders
Top score on each marker
Where more than 6 firms share the top score, we list the first 6 alphabetically.
- Payout Proof top score 10 of 10, 12 firms
Funded Trader Markets, FundingTraders, FundYourFX, iFunds, OneFunded, Paid To Trade and 6 more - Pricing Clarity top score 9 of 10, 10 firms
Carrot Funding, CoinProp, FundYourFX, Goat Funded Futures, Nordic Funder, Pipster and 4 more - Refund Policy top score 9 of 10, 8 firms
City Traders Imperium, FunderPro, Gold Funding, Halcyon Trader Funding, Instant Funding, MasterFunders and 2 more - Rule Clarity top score 8 of 10, 1 firm
CoinProp - Rule Stability & Track Record top score 12 of 15, 58 firms
Alpha Capital Group, Apex Trader Funding, Apteros Trading, Audacity Capital, Blue Guardian, City Traders Imperium and 52 more - Hidden-Rule Disclosure top score 9 of 10, 7 firms
Bitfunded, CoinProp, FTMO, FundedCore, Phidias Propfirm, Traderscale and 1 more - Ownership Disclosure top score 10 of 10, 2 firms
Alpha Futures, The5ers - Regulatory Clarity top score 10 of 10, 30 firms
CoinProp, Darwinex Zero, Eightcap Challenges, Elites Funding, Fintokei, Forge of Traders and 24 more - Affiliate Disclosure top score 14 of 15, 5 firms
MasterFunders, PipFarm, PropEd Capital, PropXP, Sway Funded
Top 10 overall
How we rank: by Transparency Index score, highest first; firms with the same score share a rank (shown as =2) and are listed in the order shown on the index page, which numbers every firm in turn. There are no affiliate links in this report, and affiliate deals never change a firm's score or rank.
| Rank | Firm | Score | Band | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Traderscale | 75 | Good | High |
| =2 | City Traders Imperium | 72 | Good | High |
| =2 | MILTRADERS | 72 | Good | High |
| =4 | IC Funded | 71 | Good | High |
| =4 | PropEd Capital | 71 | Good | Medium |
| =4 | The Trading Pit | 71 | Good | High |
| =7 | FTMO | 70 | Good | High |
| =7 | Pipster | 70 | Good | Medium |
| =7 | Upcomers | 70 | Good | High |
| 10 | CoinProp | 69 | Good | High |
Every firm's score, with the evidence behind each marker, is on the Transparency Index.
Confidence
Each score has a confidence level: 80 firms (42%) are high, 97 (51%) medium and 15 (8%) low.
- High: every marker rests on direct evidence from the firm's pages.
- Medium: 1–2 markers were scored from absence (“not found on the pages we read”).
- Low: 3 or more markers were scored from absence, or the firm's site was mostly unreadable.
The 15 firms with a low-confidence score have their star rating labelled provisional across the site.
Operating history
How long ago the earliest archived copy of each firm's homepage was made, counted to 10 October 2026. This is not a founding date: a domain can be older than the firm using it, and a firm can trade for a while before the Internet Archive saves its site. Our evidence records an archived copy for 108 of 192 firms (56%); for the rest we found none or could not retrieve one.
| Earliest archived copy of the homepage | Firms | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Under 1 year | 7 | 4% |
| 1 to under 2 years | 11 | 6% |
| 2 to under 5 years | 55 | 29% |
| 5 years or more | 35 | 18% |
| No archived copy recorded | 84 | 44% |
For scoring, Rule Stability & Track Record uses the later of this date and any founding or registration date the firm states.
Download and cite
The scores behind this report are free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (opens in a new tab), with credit. Download them from the dataset page as CSV or JSON. The dataset is updated when scores change, so it may be newer than this report.
Cite this report
MyPropGenius Transparency Index, standard v1.4, data of 10–11 October 2026, https://mypropgenius.com/transparency-index/report/2026-10/