Data change log
Every material change to the data, the scoring, or a firm’s status — including the times we had it wrong.
Prop firm terms change without notice, and a comparison site that never appears to be wrong is either extraordinarily lucky or not telling you something. This log records changes that could have altered a reader’s decision: prices, rules, licensing status, eligibility, and changes to how the score itself works. Entries tagged “we were wrong” are our errors, not the firm’s.
- We were wrongSGB
SGB’s first payout is three weeks, not two — we had it wrong on all twelve plans
We were showing a 14-day wait to first payout on every one of SGB’s twelve plans. Their own rules pages state «سه هفته» — three weeks, 21 days — on both Plan A and Plan B. The minimum trading days were wrong in the same direction: Plan A requires 7 days and we showed 5, Plan B requires 10 and we showed 3. The error came from a bulk fill in June that loaded all twelve rows from a hand-written grid; the profit splits in that same grid were also wrong and were corrected at the time, but these two columns were not, so a payout term a week shorter than reality has been on the firm profile, the comparison page and the audit ever since. Two of the twelve rows already said 21, with no tier logic to explain why only those two — that inconsistency is what marks it as a data-entry error rather than a rule that varies by account size. Neither column feeds the TC Score, so no score moved and the leaderboard is unchanged. If you were comparing payout speed, SGB looked a week better than it should have.
- We were wrongAlpha Capital
Alpha One pays on demand — we were showing a 14-day wait it does not have
Alpha Capital publishes two payout methods and is explicit about which accounts get which: bi-weekly on Alpha Pro and Alpha Three, and on-demand on Alpha One among others. We had all five Alpha One plans recorded as bi-weekly with a 14-day wait, which overstated the wait on the one plan family that has none. Alpha Pro and Alpha Three genuinely offer bi-weekly, so those fourteen plans were already right and are unchanged. Alpha One now reads as on-demand with no day gate. There is still a gate, it is just not a time one: 2% of gross profits on the account balance, plus a rule that no single day may be worth more than 40% of total profits — neither of which we model as a column today. This was found while checking four other firms that shared SGB’s suspicious pattern of a flat 14-day payout; for FTMO, The5ers and Moneta Funded the 14 turned out to be correct, so the pattern was not the class of error it looked like. Not a TC Score input, so no score moved.
- We were wrongInvest Prop · FundedNext
Eight rule values corrected against the firms’ own rulebooks
A full audit of every TC Score input against each firm’s official rules page found eight values that were wrong. Invest Prop’s Normal and Economic plans were listed with a 5% daily drawdown and 10% total; their rulebook states 2% daily and 6% total, and the Normal profit target is 6%, not 10%. Invest Prop Speed’s daily drawdown is 3%, not 4%. FundedNext’s Stellar 1-Step is 3% daily, not 4%, and Stellar Lite is 4%, not 5%. These matter: a 2% daily drawdown is a far harder account than the 5% we were showing. Both firms’ scores fell as a result — FundedNext by 3.1 points on average and Invest Prop by 2.6 — and FundedNext Stellar 2-Step dropped from 4th to 10th. We also removed a per-trade risk penalty from ZoraFX: they were scored as having a strict per-trade cap, but no such rule appears anywhere in their published rules, so that input is now marked unknown rather than penalised.
- Firm dataFundedNext · The5ers · FTMO · ZoraFX · Volt Funded · Invest Prop
Missing scoring inputs filled in — coverage now 96.3%
Where an input is unknown we exclude it and rescale the remaining weights, so a firm with gaps is scored on less evidence — the coverage badge next to each score shows how much. We went through every gap against the firms’ own documentation. Gold leverage is now recorded for all four FundedNext plans and two The5ers plans; FTMO’s 1-Step carries its Best Day Rule (a single day may not exceed 50% of total profitable-day profit, which applies to the 1-Step only); ZoraFX is marked as prohibiting Expert Advisors, which their rules state outright; and weekend-holding is confirmed for Volt Funded and FundedNext. Gold leverage for FTMO, Funding Pips and ZoraFX came from account access rather than a public page, because none of the three publishes it per instrument; the ZoraFX figure is a provisional 1:50 and will be revised when the exact number is confirmed. Plans named “Instant” have no challenge phase at all — the trader is funded immediately — so their profit target is zero rather than unknown, which is how it was previously recorded. Average coverage across the board rose from 90.9% to 96.3%, with 113 of 177 plans now scored on complete data. Gold leverage is still missing for Volt Funded, Invest Prop and one The5ers plan.
- MethodSitewide · TC Score
Spread scale corrected so a 0.0 spread could reach 100
The same defect as the consistency fix below, in the other direction and much milder. A spread cannot be negative, but the top of the statistical scale sat at −0.178 pips, so the best conceivable firm — one quoting 0.0 — could only have scored 97.08. The scale is now clamped at zero. No listed firm quotes 0.0 (the tightest is 1.0), so this was a small uniform stretch rather than a correction to any one firm: the average score moved 76.35 to 76.67 and the largest single gain was 0.51. No firm’s score went down and the top four positions did not change. The same clamp was added to commission and profit target, where it currently changes nothing and exists to stop the defect returning if the field shifts.
- We were wrongSitewide · TC Score
Firms with no consistency rule were scored 75 instead of 100
Every TC Score component is scored against the field on a statistical scale — the average across the table, plus and minus two standard deviations. For the consistency rule that scale was broken. “No rule” is recorded as 100%, and nothing can beat not having a rule, but because firms split into two groups (no rule at all, or a real 15–50% cap) the spread was wide enough to put the top of the scale at 132.61% — a score no firm could ever reach. A firm with the best possible policy was capped at 75.2 out of 100. This affected 68 of the 140 scored plans, just under half the board, docking roughly 1.7 points of final score for a rule they do not impose. The scale is now clamped to the range the metric can actually take, so “no rule” scores 100. No firm’s score went down. The top three positions did not change; FundedNext Stellar 2-Step moved from 8th to 4th.
- We were wrongAlpha Capital · FTMO · Moneta · Volt Funded · The5ers · ZoraFX
Six firms no longer shown as “regulated”
These firms were marked as licensed and carried a green “Regulated” badge. Checking the records showed the licence country was identical to the country of incorporation in every case — a company registration recorded as a financial licence. The5ers and ZoraFX both state in their own terms that they are not supervised by a financial regulator. Statuses are now “company registration only” or “not regulated”, each with a note explaining what that does and does not prove. No listed firm is currently financially regulated.
- We were wrongMoneta Funded
Instant plan prices were wrong by up to 9×
The $5K Instant account was listed at $350; it is $40. The 10K was $600, actually $80. The 50K was $2,750, actually $415. These came from a third-party aggregator when the firm was first added and were never confirmed against Moneta’s own checkout. Corrected from the firm directly, along with the previously missing 25K and 100K tiers.
- We were wrongAlpha Capital
Alpha One and Alpha Pro 8% prices corrected
Read from the firm’s own checkout. Alpha One moved from $50/$197/$297/$497/$997 to $47/$187/$277/$477/$947 across its five sizes; Alpha Pro 8% from $77/$247/$357/$577/$1,097 to $37/$177/$297/$527/$997. Same origin as the Moneta error — aggregator data that was never verified. Alpha Pro 6%, Alpha Pro 10% and Alpha Three could not be matched to a current product on the firm’s site and keep their older, unverified prices.
- Firm dataSitewide
Iran eligibility recorded for all 11 firms
Previously only four firms had any eligibility record. SGB, ZoraFX, Invest Prop, PropiaFunds, FundedNext and Volt Funded accept Iranian traders; Funding Pips, Alpha Capital, FTMO, The5ers and Moneta do not. Volt Funded had been marked as blocking Iran on 26 Aug based on a reading of its restricted-jurisdictions footer — that was wrong and has been reversed. Eligibility has never been an input to the TC Score.
- We were wrongSGB
Commission corrected to $4.50
Two tables disagreed: the live-spread page used $4.50 and the scoring data used $5.00, so the site quoted two different commissions for the same firm and the score charged SGB 50 cents per lot it does not take.
- Firm dataSitewide
322 rule corrections across all 11 firms
A full re-audit of every listed firm’s published rules: drawdown models, daily and total limits, consistency rules, per-trade risk caps, profit targets, payout terms and leverage. The largest single class of error was profit split — four firms were recorded at their marketed ceiling rather than the rate a trader actually starts on. SGB was the worst, listed at 87.9% when the real schedule is 75% on the first payout, 80% through the sixth, and 90% only from the seventh.
- MethodTC Score
Missing data no longer helps or harms a score
A blank field used to mean both “this firm has no such rule” and “nobody checked”, and the score treated the two inconsistently — an unchecked consistency rule scored as the best possible value while every other missing field scored as the worst. Unknown inputs are now excluded and the remaining weights rescaled. Because that is invisible in a single number, every score now also publishes a coverage percentage. Control for the change: PropiaFunds, the only firm with no unknowns at the time, moved 0.00.
- MethodTC Score
Gold leverage now scored on the metals tier, not the FX tier
The gold-capacity component was reading each firm’s FX leverage, which overstates it for every firm that caps metals separately — and several do it per plan rather than per firm. Metals leverage is now a separate field. Firms whose metals tier is not yet verified are excluded from that component rather than assumed.
- Firm dataSitewide
31 discontinued plans removed, 10 added
Plans that can no longer be bought were listed as available. The clearest case was Funding Pips “1 Step” — all six sizes of a model whose own help page is titled “1 Step Model (No Longer Offered)”, including a $200K size that never existed. FundedNext’s Stellar Instant line had to be rebuilt entirely: all four stored sizes were discontinued and four new ones introduced. Inventory went from 196 plans to 174.
- We were wrongZoraFX
Gold spread was recorded at half its real value
Stored as 20 points against a real 38. Spread carries 21% of the TC Score on its own, so the correction moved ZoraFX from 4th to 8th. The stale value survived because the firm renders its instrument data in a way automated checks cannot read, and because ZoraFX had been rotated off the live spread feed — nothing was contradicting it. The same exposure applies to every listed firm not currently on the feed.
- MethodSitewide
Every score now publishes its full working
Each firm page shows how its TC Score was reached: every component, the value recorded, the range across all listed firms, the weight it carried, and what lifts or holds the score down. The explanation is produced by the same database function that produces the score, so the two cannot drift apart.
Logo updates, index tuning and copy edits are real changes but nobody chose a firm because of them, so they are not listed here. Spotted something we have not caught? The corrections page explains how to tell us, and we review within 7 days.