Methodology v1.1

How the PropFirmV Score Works

Every PropFirmV Score is a weighted average of seven category sub-scores (0–10) drawn from each firm's published rules, pricing, payout history, and platform support. We don't take a firm's word for it — sub-scores come from documented evidence, and any firm with an unscored category is excluded from ranked tables until we can fill it in. Affiliate status has zero weight.

The formula

Each firm is scored 0–10 on seven categories. We multiply each sub-score by its weight, sum them into a raw score, cap that sum at the firm's trust score plus 2.0, then round to one decimal. A weak rule book or a sketchy track record cannot be papered over by a great platform or low fee.

Category	Weight
Rule clarity	20%
Cost / value	20%
Payout structure	15%
Trust & reliability	15%
Platform fit	15%
Rule forgivingness	10%
Usability	5%
Total	100%

raw   = 0.20·ruleClarity + 0.20·costValue + 0.15·payoutStructure
      + 0.15·trustReliability + 0.15·platformFit
      + 0.10·ruleForgivingness + 0.05·usability
final = round( min(raw, trustReliability + 2.0) × 10 ) / 10

Trust cap

The final score can never exceed the firm's Trust & Reliability sub-score plus 2.0. A firm with a Trust score of 5 is capped at 7.0 no matter how cheap or feature-rich the program is — payout reliability is the floor of everything else.

Per-category rubrics

Each category is scored 0–10 against the bands below. Sub-scores are assigned from documented evidence — a firm with an unscored category is excluded from ranked tables until we can fill it in.

Rule clarity (20%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Every rule (drawdown, consistency, news, scaling, payout cadence) published in one place, with worked examples and a public changelog.
7–8	All material rules documented and unambiguous; minor gaps resolved via official support within 24 hours.
5–6	Core rules public but require cross-referencing FAQ, Discord, or support tickets to fully understand.
3–4	Material terms (consistency, trailing math, payout caps) only confirmed by support or community, not in writing.
0–2	Hidden rules, retroactive changes, or contradictions between site, terms, and dashboard.

Cost / value (20%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Bottom-decile true cost per $1,000 of buying power at the 2-attempt assumption, with no activation fee or reset surcharge.
7–8	Below-median true cost; reset pricing transparent and reasonable.
5–6	Median true cost for the asset class; no obvious upcharges.
3–4	Above-median true cost driven by activation, data, or mandatory add-ons.
0–2	Top-decile true cost or fee structure designed to fail traders into resets.

Payout structure (15%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Profit split ≥90% after scaling, sub-weekly payouts, no withdrawal caps, on-demand once threshold met, multiple rails.
7–8	80–90% split, bi-weekly or faster, clearly defined minimum thresholds, reliable rails.
5–6	Standard 80/20 split, monthly cadence, modest caps on first payouts.
3–4	Sub-80% split, slow cadence, or restrictive first-payout rules (e.g. low caps, long lockups).
0–2	Profit splits that change retroactively, opaque caps, or documented payout-blocking behaviour.

Trust & reliability (15%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Multi-year track record, named ownership, public payout proofs, broker/liquidity disclosed, no material complaint pattern.
7–8	12+ months operating, consistent payouts, responsive support, isolated complaints handled publicly.
5–6	Operating <12 months OR limited payout proof, but no red flags.
3–4	Pattern of late payouts, vague ownership, or unresolved rule-change disputes.
0–2	Active payout failures, rebrands to escape reputation, or evidence of bad-faith disqualifications.

Platform fit (15%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Native support for the asset class's leading platforms (e.g. NinjaTrader, Tradovate, TradingView, MT5, cTrader) with no rule-set tax for choosing one.
7–8	Covers 2+ leading platforms for the asset class with parity on rules and payouts.
5–6	Single mainstream platform with adequate execution.
3–4	Proprietary or thin-feature platform only; missing key tools (DOM, advanced orders, API).
0–2	Platform restrictions that materially block common strategies (no scalping, no algos, forced web-only).

Rule forgivingness (10%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	EOD or static drawdown, no consistency rule, generous news/holding policies, soft-breach warnings before disqualification.
7–8	EOD drawdown OR mild consistency (≤50% best-day), reasonable news rules.
5–6	Intraday trailing drawdown with documented mechanics; standard consistency.
3–4	Trailing drawdown plus consistency rule plus restrictive news/holding policy.
0–2	Stacked traps (tight trailing + low consistency + minimum trading days + flat-by-Friday) that disqualify most profitable traders.

Usability (5%)

Band	Criteria
9–10	Dashboard shows live drawdown, consistency, and payout eligibility; KYC and payout flow take <10 minutes end-to-end.
7–8	Clear dashboard, fast onboarding, occasional friction in payout request UX.
5–6	Functional but dated UI; users must self-calculate one or more rule metrics.
3–4	Confusing dashboards, slow support, or KYC/payout requiring >1 week.
0–2	Broken dashboards, ticket-only payout requests, or repeated user-error losses caused by UI.

Cost & Value method

We normalise every firm's pricing to a single comparable number — true cost per $1,000 of buying power, assuming a trader passes on the second attempt (industry-typical pass rate for evaluated programs).

Cost per $1,000 of account size

trueCost   = (evalFee × 2) + activationFee + (monthlyData × monthsToFirstPayout)
costPer1k  = trueCost / (accountSize / 1000)

Reset fees use the firm's published reset price, not the headline eval price. Activation and mandatory data fees count as real costs even when marketed as optional. Refundable fees count at zero only when documented as automatic on first payout.

Within-asset-class percentile bands

Cost is scored against the firm's peers in the same asset class — futures evaluations are compared to other futures evaluations, not to forex challenges.

Percentile within asset class	Cost / value sub-score
Bottom 10% (cheapest)	9–10
10–30%	7–8
30–70% (median)	5–6
70–90%	3–4
Top 10% (most expensive)	0–2

Run the math yourself in the True Cost Calculator.

Tie-breaker order

Final score (desc)
Trust & reliability (desc)
Estimated 2-attempt true cost (asc)
Payout structure (desc)
Rule clarity (desc)

Governance commitments

Weights are versioned. Each version has a dated entry in the changelog below.
Affiliate status is a 0% input to the score.
Popularity, traffic, and click volume are not inputs to the score.
Re-scoring is triggered when a firm changes its rule set, payout terms, pricing, or platform support — or when our own rubric version changes.
Any firm with an unscored category is excluded from ranked tables until every sub-score is filled in.

Changelog

v1.1

June 12, 2026

Split scoring into seven weighted categories.
Introduced the Trust cap: final score ≤ trustReliability + 2.0.
Scores are now computed centrally from category sub-scores; manual overrides removed.
Firms with any unscored category are excluded from ranked tables until fully scored.

v1.0

Initial release

First public PropFirmV Score with hand-entered category scores.
Affiliate status excluded from scoring from day one.