Perp Prop Firm Review Methodology & Scoring Rubric

Based on the firm's published rules, terms and public evidence, checked on 2026-11-03.

Perp Prop Firm Review Methodology & Scoring Rubric

At PerpsOnly, our mission is to give traders clear, sourced evaluations of crypto-focused prop firms. Every firm we cover runs simulated accounts, and we only cover perpetual-futures firms. We look at how each firm's published rules handle things like funding rates, leverage, and crypto payouts.

We evaluate every firm using the same 5-pillar rubric on a 0–10 scale. The raw pillar scores are editorial judgments; the formula below combines them. This page outlines our criteria, weightings, fact-checking standards, how we list firms as not currently recommended, and our editorial independence standards.

The 5-Pillar Evaluation Rubric (0–10 Scale)

Every firm receives an individual score from 0.0 to 10.0 in five core categories. These scores are weighted to produce an overall PerpsOnly Score out of 10.

Weighted Score Calculation Formula

$$\text{Overall Score} = (\text{Cost} \times 0.20) + (\text{Rules} \times 0.25) + (\text{Payouts} \times 0.25) + (\text{Platform} \times 0.15) + (\text{Trust} \times 0.15)$$

Rating Tiers

• 9.0 – 10.0 (Elite): Highest overall scores on our rubric.
• 7.5 – 8.9 (Recommended): Strong firms with minor drawbacks (e.g., slightly higher fees or strict consistency clauses).
• 6.0 – 7.4 (Average): Operable, but traders face restrictive drawdown terms or subpar trading interfaces.
• 4.0 – 5.9 (Caution): High evaluation friction, unproven operational history, or non-standard payout conditions.
• Below 4.0: Doesn't meet our scoring threshold; see "Not currently recommended" below.

Detailed Category Breakdown

1. Cost & Fees (20% Weight)

Evaluating a prop firm begins with understanding the true cost of evaluation. We assess:

• Price-to-Buying-Power Ratio: Normalized dollar cost per $1,000 of simulated challenge balance.
• Fee Refundability: Whether the challenge entry fee is refunded in full upon reaching the first successful payout.
• Trading Costs: Examination of maker/taker commissions, funding rate pass-through, and any spread markup above underlying exchange spot/perp prices.
• Reset & Extension Costs: Transparency and discount rates offered for challenge retries.

2. Trading Rules & Drawdown Fairness (25% Weight)

Unrealistic rules are the primary reason traders fail evaluations. We audit:

• Drawdown Calculation Model: We strongly penalize firms using intraday equity trailing drawdown (where maximum loss trails open unrealized profits in real-time) and favor firms utilizing end-of-day balance-based drawdown or static drawdown.
• Profit Targets: Compared across firms (we use 8–10% for Phase 1 and 5% for Phase 2 as reference points). Targets exceeding 12% receive score deductions.
• Time Limits: Firms that allow unlimited trading days receive higher scores than those enforcing 30-day deadlines.
• Trading Style Freedom: We examine whether firms permit automated algorithmic/API trading, news event trading, overnight and weekend holding, and hedging.

3. Payout Reliability & Speed (25% Weight)

A prop firm is only as good as its payouts. Our assessment covers:

• Base & Scaled Profit Split: Evaluating split tiers starting from 70% up to 90%+.
• Payout Frequency & Turnaround Time: Frequency of payout cycles (on-demand, bi-weekly, or monthly) and verified duration from payout request to wallet receipt.
• Withdrawal Buffers: Identification of restrictive minimum thresholds or mandatory capital buffers that prevent traders from pulling out profits.
• Payment Rails: Support for fast, low-fee cryptocurrency settlements (USDT TRC-20, USDC on Solana/Arbitrum) alongside traditional payment providers (Rise, Deel, Bank Wire).

4. Platform Execution & Liquidity (15% Weight)

We look at how each firm describes its execution and pricing. We evaluate:

• Liquidity Sources: What the firm states about where prices come from and whether orders are simulated. Every firm we cover is simulated.
• Slippage & Fill Rates: What each firm publishes about fills, funding rate windows and liquidity gaps, plus public evidence. We report a fill test only where a review states one.
• Trading Terminals: Availability of TradingView integration, specialized desktop execution terminals, API access, and mobile applications.

5. Trust, Ownership & Track Record (15% Weight)

Evaluating longevity and counterparty risk:

• Corporate Registration: Verification of registered legal entities, physical operating offices, and identifiable leadership.
• Backing & Capitalization: Institutional backing, exchange partnerships, or verified proprietary capital pools.
• Community Consensus: Community sentiment as shown in public sources such as Trustpilot and trader forums, which we cite where used.
• Contractual Clarity: Auditing user agreements and Terms of Service for ambiguous clauses that grant firms unilateral power to cancel accounts.

Fact Verification Standards

We enforce strict evidentiary standards before publishing any claim:

1. Primary Source Auditing: We check each parameter (profit targets, daily drawdown, pricing, leverage) against the firm's published terms and FAQ where available, and label secondary sources.
2. Published Terms and Public Evidence: We have not opened or traded accounts at any firm. Each review is based on the firm's published rules, terms and public evidence, checked on the date shown on each review.
3. Payout Evidence: We cite publicly posted payout evidence and link to it; we label anything we could not verify.
4. Rule Monitoring: We review covered firms periodically, with the date shown on each review, to detect unannounced rule changes, price increases, or updated trading restrictions.

Not currently recommended

A firm is listed as not currently recommended when it doesn't meet our scoring or evidence threshold at the check date. This isn't a finding of wrongdoing.

Affiliate Disclosure & Editorial Independence

To maintain free access to our reviews and research, PerpsOnly participates in affiliate referral programs.

How Our Affiliate Links Work

When you click on certain links on our site and purchase an evaluation challenge or account, we earn a commission from the prop firm. Where we have a discount code, the review shows it and the discount. Using our links never increases your price.

Editorial Firewall

Our commercial partnerships are strictly separated from our editorial ratings:

• No Paid Placement: Firms cannot purchase higher scores, top rankings in comparison tables, or positive reviews.
• Scoring Application: The 5-pillar formula determines a firm's final score, not affiliate commission rates.
• No Censorship of Deficiencies: If a partner firm has wide spreads, poor support, or restrictive drawdown rules, those flaws are highlighted prominently regardless of affiliate status.
• Equal Scrutiny: Partner firms undergo the exact same verification standards as non-partner firms.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does PerpsOnly calculate the overall score for a prop firm?

The overall score is a weighted mathematical average: Cost (20%), Rules & Drawdown (25%), Payout Reliability (25%), Platform & Liquidity (15%), and Trust & Backing (15%). Each category is scored from 0.0 to 10.0 based on documented parameters, published terms and public evidence.

What is the difference between trailing equity drawdown and balance-based drawdown?

Trailing equity drawdown calculates your maximum loss threshold based on your highest open (unrealized) profit intraday, which can cause you to breach rules even if a trade retraces profitably. Balance-based drawdown calculates your maximum loss based strictly on closed account balance at daily settlement, offering a far fairer environment for crypto swing traders.

Can a prop firm pay PerpsOnly to change its score or status?

No. We do not accept paid rating or status changes.

Corrections: send a correction via our contact form (/contact).

Last revised: 2026-11-03 by PerpsOnly. Checked on 2026-11-03.