Hub · Scoring
How the Trust Score works
Every ranking on this site comes out of one weighted grid. This page shows the whole machine: the five criteria, their weights, every sub-score for every firm, and the arithmetic that turns them into a total. Nothing here is written by hand — the numbers are recomputed from the same file that powers the comparator, so this page cannot disagree with the rankings.
Grid last revised 26 August 2026.
The five criteria
Weights sum to 100%. Each firm gets 0–100 per criterion; anything we cannot verify scores 0 rather than being quietly skipped.
Is the full rulebook published before you pay? Are drawdown and daily-loss limits stated in numbers you can compute yourself? Hidden consistency rules, minimum trading days or time limits cost points. A firm that reveals its rules after payment loses most of them.
How fast do you actually get paid, in what, and can you prove it? On-chain settlement scores highest because you can check the transaction yourself. An internal balance you have to trust scores lowest, regardless of the advertised speed.
How long has the firm operated, is it funded, does its infrastructure respond today (we verify domains by DNS and HTTP)? Since August 2026 this also covers solvency you can check yourself: a payout reserve readable on-chain scores above a balance sheet taken on trust. A firm that already went dark once starts near zero here.
Bots and copy trading allowed? News trading, weekend holding, scalping? Leverage caps and market breadth. The absence of restrictive rules is worth more than a slightly higher split.
Entry price against account size, the real profit split, refundable fees, and what a second attempt costs. An 80% split you reach beats a 92% split you never do.
The formula
Trust Score = Σ (sub-score × weight). One rule on top: a firm we have only desk-researched — public documents, no money of ours at risk — is capped, whatever the arithmetic says. Buying and trading an evaluation lifts the cap.
Worked example, live numbers — Propr.xyz
91×0.25 + 88×0.25 + 77×0.2 + 95×0.15 + 82×0.15
= 86.7 / 100
Desk-researched firms are capped at 85. “Traded” means we bought the evaluation with our own money.
Every sub-score, every firm
This table is generated from the grid file at build time. Recompute any row yourself: multiply each sub-score by its weight and add them up.
| Firm | Rules 25% | Payouts 25% | Survival, 20% | Trading 15% | Cost 15% | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Propr.xyzTraded | 91 | 88 | 77 | 95 | 82 | 86.7 |
| HypernovaTraded | 82 | 92 | 80 | 80 | 88 | 84.7 |
| Carrot FundingDocs only | 65 | 82 | 68 | 70 | 80 | 72.9 |
| Solana FundedDocs only | 62 | 75 | 65 | 68 | 82 | 69.8 |
| BreakoutDocs only | 72 | 55 | 85 | 60 | 78 | 69.5 |
| HyperPNLDocs only | 60 | 70 | 55 | 65 | 60 | 62.3 |
| GT FundedDocs only | 20 | 10 | 5 | 40 | 25 | 18.3 |
The rules the grid itself obeys
- Scores are never for sale. Sponsored slots buy visibility on clearly labelled placements — never a point on this grid. The advertise page says the same thing publicly.
- Affiliate links never touch scores. We hold affiliate deals with Propr and Hypernova, disclosed on every page that uses them. The grid was revised against a firm we earn from more than once.
- Every revision is dated and argued. The grid file carries a public changelog of what changed and why — including the 12 August 2026 revision triggered by a founder challenging us line by line. Numbers do not move quietly.
- Claims we cannot verify score zero. We do not average away uncertainty; we price it.
- Being nice to us buys nothing. Both firms at the top of this grid have publicly disputed parts of it. That is how it should work.
Who publishes their economics
An idea sharpened by Propr's own CEO: revenue minus payouts settles the profitability question — but only if revenue is published. This table tracks who lets you run that math. One framing rule: the ratio itself is neither good nor bad (a young firm selling many challenges mechanically shows a low one). The metric here is computability — can a reader verify the economics without trusting anyone?
Last read : 26 August 2026
| Firm | Revenue published | Payouts published | Pass rate published | On-chain reserve | Payout ratio computable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Propr.xyz | Yes$2.43M lifetime · $10.8M run rate | Yes$1.11M lifetime · median pay 3m 04s | Yes15.2% paid (2,366/15,583) · 13.3% free trial | Noaddress directory + verified payout contract published — no pre-funded reserve balance | Yes≈ $0.46 returned per $1 collected |
| Hypernova | No | Yes$555.5K lifetime · avg 6.1s | Yes20.7% / 19.5% / 30.6% by risk tier | Yes$849.9K readable on Arbitrum | No |
| Carrot Funding | No | No | No | No | No |
| Solana Funded | No | No | No | No | No |
| Breakout | No | No | No | No | No |
| HyperPNL | No | No | No | No | No |
Propr is currently the only firm in this table whose payout ratio a reader can compute from published numbers. Any firm can join this column by publishing its revenue — that is the point.
Trust Score ≠ on-chain tiers
The on-chain tier scale is a separate, narrower instrument: it measures which of a firm's claims can be re-verified against a public chain — a readable payout reserve, payouts that settle by contract, trader state written on-chain. It does not claim a firm executes or hedges its trades on-chain, and it feeds only part of two criteria (payouts, survival). A firm can be honest and low-tier; a high tier is not an endorsement.
How we test prop firms (methodology) · Compare all firms · Sponsored slots: what they buy, what they never buy