About PropLens

An independent, futures-only comparison of prop firm evaluations and funded accounts. We turn each firm's rules into the same set of numbers, so they can be compared fairly — and we show where every number comes from.

Who we are

PropLens is an independent project run by Tommaso Signoroni. No prop firm owns, funds or controls it, and no firm sees its score before it is published. You can reach us at info@proplens.trading.

Prop firms describe their rules in different ways, on different pages, with different names for the same thing. PropLens collects the rules, fees and payout conditions of every evaluation and funded account and puts them in one consistent format — per account size, per drawdown type, per pricing option — so you can compare them in minutes instead of reading dozens of help-center articles.

How we check the data

1. Official sources first. Prices, fees, targets, drawdowns, consistency rules, payout terms, platforms and restricted countries come from each firm's own website — pricing pages and checkout configurators — and its help center or rulebook. Third-party sources are used only for what firms don't publish (such as the founding year or independently tracked payouts), and are labelled as such. Ratings come from the firm's Trustpilot page.
2. Every account, every option. Each account size, drawdown choice and pricing option is recorded separately, because the rules often differ between them.
3. Nothing guessed. If a firm doesn't publish something, the page says "Not disclosed" rather than showing an estimate.
4. When sources disagree — for example a help article and the pricing page — we follow the most recent official source, ask the firm's support in writing when it isn't clear, and never pick the value that would make an account look cheaper than it may be. The choice is noted in our records.
5. Dated. Every firm and account page shows the date its data was last verified on the firm's website — see the verification log below. Every firm is re-checked in full at least every three months, and sooner when a firm announces changes or someone reports an error.

Corrections

Firms change their terms often, sometimes without notice. If something on a page is wrong or out of date, use "Report wrong data" on that firm or account page — a link to the firm's page that shows the correct value helps a lot. We check every report against the firm's own sources; when it's confirmed we correct the page and update its "Verified" date. Reports never change a score by themselves: only the firm's published rules do.

When a firm stops selling an account or closes, its page stays online and says so, with the source and the best alternatives — see closed prop firms.

How we make money

How we score

Every account gets four scores, computed the same way for every firm:

Chance to pass

Profit target, max loss and drawdown type decide together how hard an evaluation is, so we measure them together, as one number: the chance that a trader with no edge — every trade a coin flip — reaches the profit target before hitting the max loss. Each rule counts once. With a static drawdown (a fixed floor) the chance is max loss ÷ (target + max loss): with a $3,000 target and a $3,000 max loss, 50%. A trailing drawdown that follows every new high is harder: about 37% with the same numbers. One that moves only at the end of the day sits in between: about 42% (we simulate it — 40,000 runs for each target size). Trailing floors stop at the starting balance, as at the firms we list. Two-phase evaluations multiply the chance of each phase.

It isn't a real pass rate — firms don't publish those, and skill changes everything. It's a fair way to compare how demanding the rules are, with the same math for every account.

Average cost to get funded

The price of an evaluation is what one try costs, and many traders need more than one. So every card also shows what getting funded costs on average: the evaluation bought again until you pass — on average 1 ÷ chance to pass tries — plus any activation fee, paid once. It's the figure half of the Challenge score is built on. A $50 evaluation with a 34% chance takes about 3 tries: about $149. A straight-to-funded account costs its price. Resets, often cheaper than a new evaluation, aren't counted, and a trader with an edge needs fewer tries — the figure is for comparing accounts, not a forecast of what you'll spend.

Fastest first payout

How soon the rules let you ask for your first payout, and what you've spent by then. We assume you buy on a Monday, trade every weekday, pass at the first try on the fewest days allowed, and the funded account starts the next trading day. Each phase takes as many days as its strictest rule needs: minimum trading days or days of profit; a consistency rule (if your best day may be at most 40% of the profit, you need at least 3 days); a daily profit cap (the buffer plus the minimum payout, divided by the cap); and waiting periods in calendar days ("14 days from the first trade"). The cost is one evaluation (one month for monthly plans, if you pass within it), any activation fee, and any monthly fee while funded. The firm's review and payout processing time aren't included, since few firms publish them. It's a best case, not a prediction, and it's not part of any score.

All scores run from 0 to 100. The weights are our judgement of what matters most to futures traders — they're listed above so you can check them, or disagree. No firm can pay to change its score.

What makes us different

Verification log

We currently track 25 prop firms with 261 challenge/funded accounts across 19 trading platforms. The date each firm's data was last verified on its own website:

Missing a firm? Use "Suggest a missing firm" at the bottom of any page and we'll research it.