Will the firm behind your funded account actually pay?
For every prop / funded-trading firm we put the profit split next to a transparent reliability score, then rank by safety-weighted split, the split scaled by the reliability score (a ranking, not a predicted payout). Each firm's page also lays out the account terms as plain facts, the drawdown type, consistency rule and payout cadence, because a 90% split with a brutal drawdown is a worse deal than a fair 80%. After 80+ firms collapsed in 2024-25, the question is no longer just the split. Every figure links to its source. Not advice.
Tune the score to what you trust
Drag a slider to say how much each thing matters to you. The score, the ranking and the chart update live as you do. The defaults reproduce our published score.
✓ The collapse signal sits on the reliability core, where it stays separated. why? →
- Reliability score.
- How likely a firm is to actually pay, 0-100 (higher = more reliable). About trust, not the size of the split.
- Profit split.
- The trader's share of profits the firm advertises.
- Safety-weighted split.
- The split scaled by the 0-100 reliability score, one number that ranks firms likely to pay above risky ones. A ranking index, not a predicted payout (the score is ordinal, not the literal odds).
- Confidence.
- How much of the score is backed by real, sourced data. Low confidence = we couldn't verify much.
- Payout reliability.
- Do they actually pay: published payouts plus a payout-process rating. The proof-of-reserves analog.
- Structure.
- Futures (regulated brokers) vs forex-CFD (MetaQuotes dependency), the documented cause of the 2024 mass collapse.
Split × Reliability
18 of 18 firmsBubble size = safety-weighted split. Top-right corner = a high split from a firm likely to pay. 0 firms have no published split (they stay in the table below).
Firms ranked by safety-weighted split
18 of 18| # | Firm | Reliability | Split | Safety-wtd split |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Topstepfutures | 85 | 90% | 76.9% |
| 2 | Apex Trader Fundingfutures | 82 | 90% | 73.8% |
| 3 | The5ersforex/cfd | 70 | 100% | 69.5% |
| 4 | FTMOforex/cfd | 76 | 90% | 68.8% |
| 5 | Bulenoxfutures | 75 | 90% | 67.1% |
| 6 | MyFundedFuturesfutures | 74 | 90% | 66.6% |
| 7 | Take Profit Traderfutures | 74 | 90% | 66.3% |
| 8 | FundingPipsforex/cfd | 66 | 100% | 66.0% |
| 9 | Alpha Futuresfutures | 73 | 90% | 65.6% |
| 10 | Earn2Tradefutures | 82 | 80% | 65.4% |
| 11 | Funded Futures Familyfutures | 72 | 90% | 65.0% |
| 12 | Tradeifyfutures | 72 | 90% | 64.7% |
| 13 | FundedNextforex/cfd | 67 | 95% | 63.2% |
| 14 | E8 Marketsforex/cfd | 61 | 100% | 60.7% |
| 15 | FXIFYforex/cfd | 59 | 90% | 52.8% |
| 16 | Blue Guardianforex/cfd | 60 | 85% | 50.8% |
| 17 | Goat Funded Traderforex/cfd | 55 | 90% | 49.9% |
| 18 | Funded Trading Plusforex/cfd | 61 | 80% | 48.8% |
The coloured dots are the 6 reliability signals (green = strong → red = weak, grey = no data). Safety-weighted split = profit split × reliability/100, a ranking index, not a predicted payout. Reliability is never a solvency verdict; firms have a right of reply. Auto-updated daily, last refresh Jun 13, 2026.
Run on the firms that actually collapsed (True Forex Funds, My Forex Funds, The Funded Trader, SurgeTrader): all scored ~38, below every surviving firm (≥55).
Tune the weights up top and the score, ranking and chart all update live. The defaults reproduce our published score.