How Still Funded Scores Prop Firms
Method version 1.1 - Last updated: July 20, 2026
Why We Score Firms This Way
The scores on this site measure what matters to a trader deciding where to put money: whether the firm is legitimate and stable, what it really costs to get and stay funded, how much a funded trader can realistically take home, and whether the rules favor the trader or the firm.
They are non-biased by design. No firm is ranked by who pays us or how much. A firm we have no affiliate relationship with outranks affiliated firms whenever the math says so, because commission is not a field the scoring data contains. Every firm on the roster is graded by the same math from the same data fields, recomputed whenever the underlying data changes.
This page is the published version of that method. It states every input, the direction each input pushes a score, and what is deliberately left out. The method described here and the method computing the live scores are the same thing, version-matched, so if this page and a score ever disagreed, that would be a bug and not a judgment call.
The Four Scores, One by One
Trust Score
What it measures: how legitimate, established, and safe the firm is.
The inputs, and the direction each one pushes:
Institutional accountability. A firm backed by a regulated broker carries a real accountability anchor and scores at the top of this input. It is a tier, not a pass-fail: a long-established independent firm with a verified, multi-year payout track record earns substantial credit here too. A new independent with no track record and no backing scores low.
Verifiable business details. A registered legal entity name, jurisdiction, registration number, a physical address that checks out, and working contact channels each add to the score. Missing or unverifiable details subtract. Thin or offshore disclosure is noted as a real signal, not an automatic disqualifier.
Confirmed payout history. Driven by the payout-proof tiers described under Data Sources below. Strong community-aggregated evidence scores high. Reported-only or unverified claims score low.
Longevity. More years in operation scores higher. New firms are capped, not failed, until they build a track record.
Stability and risk flags. Documented problems subtract: payout freezes, sudden rule changes, mass account closures, platform-outage account wipes, shutdown rumors, and ownership changes. Each flag is dated and sourced.
Third-party review standing. Ratings weighted by review volume, plus how the firm handles negative reviews. A high rating on a thin review count scores lower than a slightly lower rating across thousands of reviews. We score the verifiable live review count, never a firm's self-claimed number, and a suspended or penalized review profile is the worst signal in this input and is stated openly on the firm's page.
Transparency of terms. Drawdown rules, payout conditions, fees, prohibited strategies, country eligibility, and the trader agreement should all be published clearly before purchase. Hidden or vague terms subtract. Country eligibility and KYC restrictions are read here as a transparency matter and are never scored or written up as a payout scam.
The top four inputs above carry equal weight, so a firm earns trust through accountability, verifiable identity, proven payouts, and time, with no single one dominating.
Cost Score
What it measures: the true cost to get and stay funded. A high score means cheaper and better value.
The core reframe: evaluation fees are scored against what the fee actually buys, the profit target and the drawdown buffer, not against the advertised account size. The demo-capital label is marketing. The target and the buffer are the product.
The inputs, and the direction each one pushes:
Evaluation fee versus drawdown buffer, and evaluation fee versus profit target. Together these replace account-size fee comparison entirely. More buffer and a closer target per dollar score higher.
Activation and funded-account fees. One-time or recurring fees to activate or keep the funded account. This is a frequently hidden second cost, so it carries more weight than either evaluation-fee input alone. Some firms scale the activation fee up with account size, which this input captures.
Reset and recurring fee model. Reset cost, plus whether the firm runs a monthly subscription, which balloons for slower traders, or a one-time fee, which is predictable. The score reflects the expected real cost, not the headline.
Data and platform fees.
Effective cost after typical discount. The firm's typical sustained discount level factors into an effective-cost view. This is the sustained level, never a one-off spike, and it is kept separate from the standard-price baseline.
Hidden and friction fees. Payout fees, withdrawal minimum charges, and similar subtract.
Both evaluation-fee inputs use the standard published price as the baseline. The live discount code shown on a firm's discount page is a display element and never a score input, so a weekend flash sale does not swing a firm's Cost Score.
Payout Score
What it measures: how much a funded trader can realistically make and take home.
The inputs, and the direction each one pushes:
Number of simultaneous accounts allowed.Stacking multiplies capital, so a higher account cap scores higher. The firm's copy-trading permission is read alongside this: a firm that lets you copy across your own accounts multiplies payout potential and scores more favorably, and a firm that bans it scores less so.
Profit split. The percentage the trader keeps, including tiered splits. Higher splits, and splits that favor the trader earlier, score higher.
Payout caps and frequency. Fewer caps and more frequent payout windows score higher.
Maximum allocation and scaling ceiling. This reads the firm's scaling plan mechanics, and it includes contract and position-size limits, because those cap earning power no matter what the headline capital number says.
Time to first payout. Shorter requirements score higher.
Payout speed. Time from request to money in hand.
Withdrawal flexibility.
One more consideration: where a firm forces successful traders onto live accounts with reduced risk parameters, realized payout potential drops at migration, and that is read here as a downward consideration.
Rules Score
What it measures: whether the rules favor the trader or the firm. A high score means trader-favored.
The inputs, and the direction each one pushes:
Drawdown size relative to profit target. The single most consequential rule for whether an account is realistically tradeable, and the heaviest input in this score. More room to be wrong per dollar of target scores higher.
Time limits. No time limit is best. Longer than a month is good, 30 days is the baseline, and a tight multi-day deadline scores lowest.
Consistency rule. Looser or absent consistency rules score higher. Strict ones favor the firm.
Drawdown method. Static drawdown is the most forgiving and scores highest, end-of-day trailing is next, and intraday trailing scores lowest. This is scored per account tier, because a single firm can use one method on the evaluation and a different one on the funded account, and the score reads the tier you would actually trade.
Daily loss limit. Presence and size, including whether a breach is soft or hard. A hard limit that fails the account the instant it is crossed is more firm-favored than a soft one.
News trading allowance. Fewer restrictions score higher.
Automation allowance. Same direction.
Other restrictive rules. A cumulative penalty for stacked restrictions: minimum trading days, scaling restrictions, minimum-hold rules aimed at scalpers, the firm's count of other documented restrictions, and forced live migration, where a firm moves winners onto a live account with tightened risk and blocks further account purchases.
The Still Funded Score
The composite Still Funded Score is an equal blend of the four scores, 25 percent each. An equal blend treats the four as co-equal and builds in no hidden editorial preference, which is the most defensible way to publish a composite. It exists for sorting and roundups. The four individual scores are the real value, and the prop firm finder reads them directly.
What We Deliberately Exclude
Three things never enter the math:
Commission. What a firm pays us, or whether it pays us at all, is not a field in the scoring data. The math cannot see it.
Affiliate status. Whether we have a relationship with a firm has no input anywhere in any score.
Sponsorship. No paid placement of any kind touches a score, a ranking, or a verdict.
Our scores are calculated from a published methodology using firm data, verified business details, payout evidence, and rule mechanics. Affiliate relationships are never an input. When a firm we have no relationship with scores highest, it holds the top spot.
Data Sources and Verification
Score inputs come from sources in this order of authority: government business registries and regulator records, the firm's own published terms, FAQ, and help-center pages, and dated community evidence. When a firm's marketing page and its trader agreement disagree, the agreement wins.
Payout evidence is labeled by tier, and there are two:
Community-aggregated. Documented payout evidence from public sources: the firm's own published or audited payout reports, dated payout threads on Trustpilot, Reddit, or Discord, and third-party trackers, cited and linked. This is the stronger tier. The best case is an independently audited payout report, the strongest form of evidence in this tier.
Reported and unverified. Claims exist but could not be independently confirmed, and the page says so. Where a firm shows both fresh verified payout reviews and a corroborated, dated cluster of non-payment complaints, the page presents both sides with dates, labels the evidence community-reported, and issues no verdict in either direction. The label carries the tension.
Review counts are handled the same way: when a firm's self-claimed review count and the live verifiable count conflict, the score uses the verifiable number and the gap is flagged on the firm's page. A suspended or penalized third-party review profile is stated openly, never omitted.
Pricing history comes from our own sale-history log, which records each firm's discount levels over time and feeds the typical-sustained-discount input in the Cost Score.
Versioning and Updates
The method carries a version number, currently 1.1, and every live score on the site is computed by that same version. When the method changes, the change is dated and noted on this page. Each firm's scores also show the date they were computed, so you always know how fresh the number is.
After every scoring run we also perform an independence self-check: verifying that long-established independent firms with strong payout records land in the high Trust band, and that no broker-backed but otherwise weak firm outranks them on Trust alone. If a check ever fails, the inputs get reviewed and the result gets documented here.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is the Trust Score calculated?
From seven inputs: institutional accountability, verifiable business details, confirmed payout history, years in operation, stability and risk flags, third-party review standing, and transparency of terms. The top four carry equal weight, so no single input can dominate the score.
Do affiliate commissions affect the scores?
No. Commission, affiliate status, and sponsorship are not fields in the scoring data, so the math cannot see them. A firm we earn nothing from ranks first whenever the math puts it there.
How often are the scores updated?
Scores are recomputed whenever a firm's underlying data changes, such as a price change, a rule change, or a new stability flag. Every score displays the date it was computed.
What is the Still Funded Score?
An equal 25 percent blend of the Trust, Cost, Payout, and Rules scores, used for sorting and roundups. The four individual scores carry the real detail, so check those before choosing a firm.
Why is a firm's score different from its Trustpilot rating?
Trustpilot measures one thing, customer sentiment, and it can be gamed. Our Trust Score weighs review standing by volume as just one of seven inputs alongside verifiable business details, payout evidence, longevity, and documented stability flags, so the two numbers can and do disagree.
Does discount pricing change a firm's Cost Score?
A live discount code never changes the score. The Cost Score is anchored to the firm's standard pricing, with one input reflecting the firm's typical sustained discount level, so a flash sale cannot swing it.