Start-Business-Online is an independent research hub focused on prop trading firms, futures funding programs, forex brokers and trading platforms. Our methodology is designed to help traders compare evaluation models in a transparent, data-driven way, without hype, guesswork or hidden commercial priorities.
Every review follows the same structured process: we gather official data, normalise it into comparable metrics, stress-test the fine print and present the results in language that real traders can actually use. On this page we explain how that process works.
Our analysis always starts with the prop firm’s official documentation. Marketing pages are useful for a quick overview, but our ratings are built on the hard details that traders actually live with day to day.
Where something is unclear, we contact the firm directly and ask their team to confirm it in writing. If a rule cannot be clearly verified, we either mark it as such in the review or do not use it in scoring at all.
Prop firm products are complicated: 1-step, 2-step, 3-step evaluations, instant funding, balance-based drawdown, equity-based drawdown, scaling plans, minimum days, max daily loss, trailing vs static drawdown and much more. To make this comparable, we normalise each program into a standard data model.
This standardisation lets traders quickly see whether, for example, a “cheaper” evaluation is actually riskier because of a tighter drawdown, or whether a higher fee buys a more forgiving and sustainable rule set.
We score each firm across several key dimensions that matter most to active traders:
These scores are then combined into an overall evaluation, which we use in our rankings and comparison tools. No firm can pay to change these scores.
We work with partners through affiliate programs and commercial collaborations, but our editorial output is completely independent from these relationships. The rules are simple:
If a partner changes their rules in a way that harms traders, our content changes as well — regardless of the commercial relationship.
Trader experiences can highlight issues that are not obvious from the rulebook alone: payout delays, inconsistent support, platform stability or disputes over rule violations. We monitor feedback from multiple channels, but we never treat unverified comments as fact.
Instead, we look for patterns. If we see recurring issues, we investigate further: we contact the firm, test processes ourselves where possible and update our content if we confirm a material change in trader risk.
Prop firms can change their rules far more often than traditional brokers. To keep our data useful, we operate a rolling update cycle:
Our content team includes fintech specialists, prop traders and analysts with deep experience across MetaTrader, cTrader, TradingView and custom in-house platforms. Every major review passes through at least one subject-matter check and one editorial quality review before publication.
For a complete overview of our editorial principles, please review our Editorial Guidelines. To learn more about our role within the prop industry, visit our About Us page, or see our Risk Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions.
No. Some firms may work with us on an affiliate or advertising basis, but none of them can pay to change scores, rankings or the tone of a review. Our methodology is internal, consistent and independent.
We aim to review key pages whenever a prop firm changes its rules, fee structure or payout model, and at minimum on a periodic basis. High-activity firms may be updated more frequently than niche providers.
Where possible, we or our network of traders run live or demo challenges to verify that execution, rule enforcement and payouts match the firm’s documented policies. However, the core scoring still relies on verifiable written rules.
Yes, and we encourage it. If a firm spots an error or outdated detail, they can contact us with supporting documentation. We correct genuine mistakes quickly but do not remove justified criticism.
Trader feedback is valuable but naturally subjective. Our methodology combines hard rules, firm behaviour over time and data-driven analysis, which can lead to a more moderate or more cautious conclusion than individual experiences.