How we rate prop firms
How we evaluate, score, and update every prop firm review on Monkeytrade.
How we approach prop firm rating
Choosing a prop firm puts money at risk twice: once when you pay the challenge fee, again when you trust the firm to pay you out on profitable trades. The difference between a transparent firm with sustainable economics and one whose terms make scaling or cashing out unrealistic is the difference between a viable funded career and an expensive learning experience.
On Monkeytrade, every prop firm is rated against a system of five weighted dimensions. Each dimension carries a weight that reflects its real importance for a trader trying to pass a challenge and get paid. The final rating is a 0-to-5 global score that lets you compare firms on consistent criteria.
The scores and criteria are public. This page explains exactly how the system works.
Two types of analysis
Monkeytrade operates with two analysis modes for prop firms, clearly labelled on every review so the reader always knows what the rating is built on.
| Desktop Analysis | Funded-Account Analysis | |
|---|---|---|
| Account | Public information; no challenge purchased | Challenge purchased, passed, and funded account active |
| Challenge terms | Published rules and fees | Rules tested under real trading conditions |
| Payouts | Documented frequency and method only | First-hand payout requested, received, and timed |
| Support | Tested from a prospect's perspective | Tested across all stages including payout disputes |
| Sources | Firm disclosures, regulatory filings, trader forums | All of the above plus first-hand experience |
| Limitation | Cannot verify whether stated rules hold in practice | The five dimensions verified through direct experience |
| Label shown | "Desktop Analysis" | "Funded-Account Analysis" |
A Desktop Analysis gives a solid picture of stated terms, regulatory context, and public reputation. It’s a reliable basis for comparison. A Funded-Account Analysis adds what only direct experience can confirm: whether rules behave as written when you’re close to a drawdown limit, whether payouts actually arrive on the stated schedule, whether support resolves disputes fairly. Both modes use the same five-dimension system.
The five dimensions
Every prop firm is rated on the same five dimensions. The weights reflect the relative importance of each factor for a retail trader pursuing funded status.
| Dimension | Weight | What it evaluates |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & Transparency | 30% | Company history, payout proofs, capital type, terms clarity |
| Challenge Fairness | 25% | Targets, drawdown rules, time limits, refund policy |
| Payout Terms | 20% | Profit split, payout frequency, scaling plan, withdrawal methods |
| Platform Quality | 15% | Available platforms, execution, allowed strategies, EA support |
| Customer Support | 10% | Channels, response time, dispute resolution, language coverage |
Dimension 1: Trust & Transparency (30%)
This dimension has the highest weight because the rest of the scorecard is meaningless if you can’t trust the firm to honour what’s written. We evaluate four aspects of the firm’s credibility and openness.
| Sub-factor | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Operating history | 8% | Years in business, regulatory standing, ownership structure, parent broker relationship |
| Capital model | 8% | Real-capital vs simulated trading, hedging behaviour, documented evidence |
| Payout proofs | 8% | Public payout records, third-party verification, trader-community evidence |
| Terms clarity | 6% | Plain-language rules, no hidden clauses, written commitments enforceable |
Dimension 2: Challenge Fairness (25%)
The challenge is where most traders fail — sometimes because their strategy isn’t ready, sometimes because the rules were stacked against any consistent strategy. This dimension measures whether the evaluation phase tests skill or punishes normal market behaviour.
| Sub-factor | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Profit target reasonableness | 6% | Target relative to allowed drawdown and time limit; achievable for a positive-expectancy strategy |
| Drawdown rules | 7% | Daily loss limit calculation, trailing vs static max drawdown, weekend / news exposure rules |
| Time limits | 5% | Calendar-day or trading-day, minimum-days requirement, consequences of overrun |
| Refund & reset policy | 7% | Fee refunded on first payout? Reset on rule break? Free retries? Pricing relative to original fee |
Dimension 3: Payout Terms (20%)
Funded accounts only matter if the firm pays. This dimension evaluates the economics of being a funded trader at this firm: how much you keep, how often, and how the relationship scales.
| Sub-factor | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Profit split | 7% | Trader's share from day one, scaling progression, retroactive adjustments |
| Payout frequency | 5% | On-demand, bi-weekly, monthly; minimum payout amount; processing time |
| Scaling plan | 4% | Capital increase milestones, requirements per tier, ceiling |
| Withdrawal methods | 4% | Bank transfer / crypto / e-wallets, fees passed to trader, regional coverage |
Dimension 4: Platform Quality (15%)
Execution quality and platform reliability decide whether your strategy can actually run. We evaluate the tools provided and the rules around how you’re allowed to use them.
| Sub-factor | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Available platforms | 4% | MT4, MT5, cTrader, TradingView, proprietary; mobile and desktop parity |
| Execution | 5% | Reported slippage, requotes, average fill time, server uptime |
| Allowed strategies | 3% | Scalping, news trading, hedging, lot-size limits, expert advisors (EAs) |
| Instruments & leverage | 3% | Asset class coverage (FX, indices, metals, crypto), max leverage per asset |
Dimension 5: Customer Support (10%)
Support quality is hard to measure until you need it. We test it from prospect, challenge-stage, and funded-account perspectives across the channels the firm offers.
| Sub-factor | Weight | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Response time | 3% | Live chat median response, ticket SLA, escalation paths |
| Channels | 2% | Live chat, email, phone, Discord / Telegram; 24/7 coverage |
| Dispute resolution | 3% | Trader-reported outcomes on rule disputes, payout delays, account closures |
| Language coverage | 2% | Number of supported languages, quality of localised support |
The scoring scale
Every dimension is scored on the same 0-to-5 scale. The global score is the weighted average across the five dimensions, also on 0 to 5.
| Score | Classification | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5 – 5.0 | Excellent | Best-in-class on this dimension; few or no compromises |
| 3.5 – 4.4 | Good | Solid for most traders; minor gaps documented |
| 2.5 – 3.4 | Average | Workable but with significant trade-offs |
| 1.0 – 2.4 | Below average | Material issues — read the review before committing |
| 0.0 – 0.9 | Critical | Avoid: documented integrity or insolvency concerns |
How often we update
Prop firm terms change — sometimes weekly. We review every firm quarterly at minimum, and immediately when a material change is reported by the firm or surfaced by the trading community (rule updates, payout policy shifts, parent-broker changes, regulatory actions).
Every review carries a “Last updated” date. If you spot a change we’ve missed, tell us — the contact form is monitored and we update fast.
See the methodology applied
Browse the prop firm catalogue to see how the scoring works on real firms, or read the broker methodology for the parallel framework we apply to forex brokers.