Top Pick →
Editorial policy · Updated 2026-01-15

Editorial policy

Last updated: 2026-01-15.

This page sets out how PropFirmReviewDesk researches and writes its reviews, and the standards we hold ourselves to.

How we select firms

We cover firms that are large enough to matter to traders, have meaningful public track records or trader followings, and span the range of what the market offers — from established incumbents to notable newer entrants. We deliberately include firms we score poorly, and we cover troubled firms rather than quietly omitting them.

What we test, verify, and don't

Every review carries an explicit evidence level so you know how much our assessment can bear:

  • Tested payout — we completed a full payout cycle with our own funded capital.
  • Tested challenge — we purchased and ran a challenge, but have not completed a full payout cycle.
  • Public terms verified — we verified specs against the firm's published terms, but have not independently traded it.
  • Trader feedback only — based on documented terms plus third-party trader feedback; not independently tested by us.

We will never imply first-hand testing we have not done.

How we score

All firms are scored on the same fixed scorecard — rule transparency (30%), payout reliability (30%), trading conditions (25%) and trader experience (15%). Full detail is in our methodology.

Independence

Affiliate relationships do not influence our scoring or rankings. See our affiliate disclosure.

Accuracy and updates

Prop-firm terms change frequently. We date our data, mark figures that change, and re-check periodically. If something is wrong or out of date, see our corrections policy or contact [PLACEHOLDER: contact email, e.g. hello@traderscalereviews.com].

Operated by [PLACEHOLDER: Registered company name].