No star ratings. Here is what we publish instead

Almost every site in this niche puts a decimal number beside a firm's name. Those numbers are not measurements of anything. They are averages of fields that cannot be averaged, and they tend to hide the one field that decides whether you get paid.

What a rating compresses

Take two plans sold at the same account size by the same firm. Crypto Fund Trader's Accelerated plan runs a 6% trailing drawdown that follows your balance upward, with a 4% daily limit and a 10% target. Its Evaluation plan runs a static 10%, a 5% daily limit and an 8% then 5% target. One of those is a much harder account than the other, and the firm's own pages say so in plain words.

A star rating has no way to hold that difference. Compress both plans into one figure and the figure is describing a firm that does not exist. The reader then picks the product the rating was not about.

Three things a score cannot show

Where drawdown trails. "6%" is a static floor at some firms, a trailing peak at others, and a rule that steps down as you make profit at a third. Same number, three different ways to fail.

When identity documents are requested. Of the 21 crypto prop firms compared here, 13 verify before the funded account activates, 7 wait until you request a payout, and 1 publishes nothing about verification at all. A "no-KYC" badge flattens those three into one word, and the word is wrong for most of them. Where a firm contradicts itself - one of the 21 requires KYC in its binding terms while its FAQ says no documents are ever asked for - we print both statements and say which one we treat as binding.

Which product the figure belongs to. Blue Guardian's cheapest 5,000 account is an $11 instant-funding starter; its cheapest challenge is a $19 evaluation. A single "from $11" is true and useless.

What we publish instead

Every row carries the page it was read from and the date. Where a firm publishes a figure, the figure is quoted in the firm's own words. Where a firm publishes nothing, the cell says Not published and stays empty rather than borrowing a competitor's number. Where one firm sells two rules at one size, both are printed, side by side, with the product each belongs to.

There are no invented review counts, no "trusted by 10,000 traders", and no paid placements. The methodology page sets out the rules, and the raw rows are downloadable as a dataset under CC BY 4.0, with a DOI, so anyone can check or reuse them.

And we publish our own errors

A site that claims to be accurate should be auditable on that claim. When the KYC timing of every firm was re-checked against the firms' own pages in November 2026, three of 24 classifications were wrong and were changed the same day. Two firms turned out to sell a product that was missing from our ladder entirely. The cheapest challenge on the site was $15, not the $16 we had been quoting. Each correction carries a date, and the change log is generated from the diff rather than written by hand.

On sites that look like this one

There is a site at cryptopropfirms.io - same name, different suffix - registered in April 2026, before this site existed. It publishes 27 firms with decimal ratings and, on the pages we read, no sources. We cannot stop a domain that looks like ours, and we are not accusing anyone of anything: it is a different site with a different method.

But the difference is legible, and it is worth knowing which one you are reading. The test is the same everywhere: ask for the sentence and the URL behind a number. This site prints both. If a comparison site cannot show you a firm's own wording for a figure, the figure is someone's impression, however precise it looks.

Four questions worth more than any score

Before paying a challenge fee: is the drawdown static, trailing, or stepped, and does it stop moving at any point? When are identity documents requested - before the account activates, or only when you withdraw? Which asset, on which chain, does the payout arrive on? And what do the firm's last twenty reviews say about money not arriving?

Those four answers decide more than a rating ever will, and each of them is a fact a firm publishes. That is the whole reason this site exists.