How the Propify Score Works

Most prop firm rankings are opinions dressed up as star ratings. A reviewer tests one or two accounts, picks a favourite, and assigns scores that reflect personal experience rather than any consistent standard.

The Propify Score is built differently. Every firm on the platform is measured against the same fixed rulebook, using data pulled from Trustpilot, regulator registers, each firm’s terms of service, and our own hands-on testing. The result is a score out of 100 that you can interrogate directly. You can see exactly why one firm sits above another, and exactly which factors pushed it there.

A Weighted Model, Not a Gut Feeling

The Propify Score is a weighted index split across four pillars. Each pillar was chosen to reflect what actually determines a trader’s chances of success, not what looks impressive on a marketing page. Each is scored out of a fixed maximum, and the four are added together for a total out of 100.

Trust carries the most weight by design. A cheap challenge is worth nothing if the firm does not pay out.

Pillar 1: Trust and Reputation (35 Points)

This pillar carries the highest weighting because it reflects the single biggest risk a trader faces: choosing a firm that does not honour its obligations.

Longevity (10 points)

Five or more years in operation scores 10. Two to four years scores 7. Under two years scores 3. Survival in a competitive and frequently turbulent industry is a meaningful signal. Firms that have navigated multiple market cycles, regulatory scrutiny, and shifts in trader demand have demonstrated something that newer entrants have not.

Public Sentiment (10 points)

Trustpilot score divided by 5, multiplied by 10. A firm with a 4.5 star rating scores 9 out of 10. This is not a subjective call. It is a direct translation of what verified reviewers are reporting into the scoring model.

Transparency (10 points)

Visible management team earns 3 points. Visible shareholders earn 3 points. A verifiable office address earns 4 points. Anonymous operators score zero across this entire category. Firms that do not publicly identify who runs them or where they are based are scored accordingly.

Payout Reliability (5 points)

Verified payout proof scores 5. Confirmed payout denials or documented scandals score 0, and the firm is flagged separately in the database. This category has no middle ground because the consequence of getting it wrong has no middle ground either.

Pillar 2: Trading Conditions and Fairness (30 Points)

This pillar measures how realistic the challenge structure is for a competent trader with a genuine edge. A firm can have strong trust credentials and still offer terms that make passing statistically unlikely for most strategies.

Drawdown type (10 points)

Static or balance-based drawdown scores 10. Trailing drawdown scores 5. High-water-mark or relative drawdown scores 0. The drawdown model is one of the most significant drivers of pass rates in the industry, and it is one of the most frequently misunderstood. A trailing drawdown that follows your peak equity is considerably more restrictive than a static limit calculated on your starting balance. The scoring reflects that difference directly.

Restrictions (10 points)

Starts at 10 and deducts 2 points for each major strategy restriction in place. Restrictions counted include no news trading, no expert advisors, no weekend holding, and comparable limitations. A firm with no restrictions of this kind scores the full 10. A firm with five significant restrictions scores zero.

Profit target (5 points)

A profit target of 8% or below scores 5. Up to 10% scores 3. Above 10% scores 1. Lower targets are more achievable across a wider range of strategies and market conditions. This is not about making the challenge easy. It is about whether the target is realistic for a trader with a genuine but modest edge.

Time limits (5 points)

No time limit scores 5. An enforced time limit scores 0. Time pressure pushes traders toward behaviour that does not reflect their actual strategy. A firm that removes the time limit removes one of the most common causes of challenge failure that has nothing to do with trading ability.

Pillar 3: Cost and Value (20 Points)

This pillar measures what you actually pay relative to what you get, rather than the headline fee in isolation.

Cost efficiency (10 points)

Measured as price per $1,000 of funding rather than by headline price, so firms offering different account sizes compare on equal terms. A $100,000 challenge at $500 works out to $5 per $1,000 of funding. The score is calculated as 14 minus 0.8 multiplied by the price per $1,000, capped between 0 and 10. At $5 per $1,000, a firm scores approximately 10. At $15 per $1,000, it scores approximately 2. Because this is a formula rather than a fixed table, the scale recalibrates automatically when pricing changes or new firms enter the market.

Profit split (5 points)

A split of 90% or above scores 5. Between 80% and 89% scores 3. Below 80% scores 1.

Refund policy (5 points)

Challenge fee refunded on the first payout scores 5. No refund scores 0. A refund policy shifts some of the financial risk back toward the firm and away from the trader, which is a meaningful structural difference when the cost of entry is measured in hundreds of pounds or euros.

Pillar 4: Platform and Experience (15 Points)

This pillar reflects the practical trading environment once a trader is through the challenge. It carries the lowest weighting because it is the least likely to affect whether a trader gets paid, but it is not irrelevant, particularly for traders with specific platform requirements or asset preferences.

Platform choice (5 points)

Three or more supported platforms scores 5. Two platforms scores 3. One platform scores 1.

Asset variety (5 points)

Extended asset coverage including crypto, stocks, or futures scores 5. Standard coverage of forex, indices, and gold scores 3.

Scaling plan (5 points)

A clearly documented route to beyond $1 million in funded capital scores 5. No scaling plan, or a vague one with no defined milestones, scores 0.

The Kill Switch

Two conditions override the entire scoring model. If a firm’s Trustpilot score falls below 3.0, or if it receives a formal warning from a financial regulator, its entire Trust and Reputation pillar resets to zero regardless of its individual category scores.

No amount of competitive pricing or generous profit splits offsets a firm that traders or regulators have formally flagged. When either condition is triggered, the firm drops immediately in the rankings, and the flag is displayed alongside its score in the comparison table.

Why the Model Is Built This Way

The Propify Score exists to answer a specific question: given everything that is publicly verifiable about this firm, how likely is a trader to have a fair experience from challenge to payout?

The weighting reflects that question. Trust sits at the top because without payout reliability, nothing else matters. Trading conditions sit second because the rules determine whether a genuinely good trader can pass. Cost sits third because the true cost of funding affects the commercial viability of prop trading as a pursuit. Platform sits last because, while it matters, it rarely determines outcomes in the way the first three pillars do.

Every score is calculated from the same rulebook and rebuilt whenever a firm changes its pricing, rules, or standing. The model does not have opinions. It has inputs. If you want to know why a firm scored what it did, the answer is always in the data.

Published by Propify. Scores are recalculated when firm data changes. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.