How we test futures brokers, prop firms and trading platforms

Why we built Best Futures

Choosing a broker, trading platform or prop firm is among the most important decisions a trader makes. Yet many traders find that the information available in the market is often shaped by marketing, promotions and generic product descriptions rather than hands-on experience and documented testing. When we started out in futures trading, we quickly discovered a big gap between how products were presented on websites and how they actually performed in practice. A broker with low commissions could have weak customer service. A platform with impressive features could turn out to be unstable during periods of high volatility. A prop firm with an attractive profit split could have rules that made it difficult to ever qualify for a payout.

That experience is the background for Best Futures. We built the site with a goal of creating an independent knowledge resource, originally for Norwegian and Scandinavian traders and now serving traders across Europe more broadly. The goal was never to build yet another list of brokers or repeat marketing material. The ambition was to develop a methodology that assesses products the way active traders actually do: through use, testing, analysis and experience over time. Today we test and assess futures brokers, CFD brokers, prop firms and trading platforms through a structured process that covers more than 150 individual assessment criteria. These criteria cover everything from account opening and onboarding to platform stability, order execution, customer service, regulation, payouts and technological infrastructure.

Our experience is that the factors that matter most to a trader are rarely the same ones highlighted in marketing. For an active futures trader, the quality of order execution, the stability of the data feed and the speed of support are often more important than small differences in commission. For a prop trader, payout speed and how the rules are enforced can matter more than the size of the profit split. For a CFD trader, regulatory protection and cost transparency can matter more than how many instruments are on offer. This is why we've chosen a methodology built on practical testing rather than theoretical assessment.

Where possible, we open our own accounts, make deposits, test products with real money, and use the platforms under actual market conditions. We also run our own tests of prop firm evaluations, covering both traditional challenges (Challenges and Combines) and Instant Funded programmes. At the same time, we don't stop at the product itself. We often establish dialogue with account managers, partnership managers, support departments and leadership to understand how these companies work on technology, customer service and product development. These conversations often provide insight that isn't available through public sources. An important part of our philosophy is also that not every test is necessarily published.

Every year we analyse more brokers, platforms and prop firms than are ever featured on the site at any given time. In some cases we choose not to publish an assessment if we believe the product doesn't meet the standard we want to recommend to European traders. The goal isn't to build the largest catalogue in the market. The goal is to identify the solutions we believe offer the highest quality. Best Futures is therefore not built as a traditional affiliate site. We see ourselves as a specialised analysis and comparison service for traders. Our most important job is to give readers a better basis for decisions than we ourselves had access to when we started our own journey in the financial markets.

This is the foundation for the methodology described in the chapters that follow.

Our core principles: Independence, transparency and practical testing

Credibility is the most important asset a comparison service can have. In the financial markets, this matters especially. Choosing a broker, trading platform or prop firm can have direct financial consequences for the trader. That's why we believe readers should be able to understand how our assessments come about, what principles we work by, and what mechanisms are in place to keep our rankings as objective as possible.

Our methodology rests on five core principles:

• Independence
• Transparency
• Practical testing
• Documentation
• Continuous updates

These principles underpin every assessment published on Best Futures.

Independence comes before commercial interests

Best Futures is partly funded through affiliate partnerships and commercial relationships. This is the same model used by many of the world's largest financial media outlets and comparison services. At the same time, we believe it's essential to be open about how this model works. When a reader clicks a link on Best Futures and later opens an account with a broker or a prop firm, we may receive a commission. That commission is paid by the provider, not the customer. For the reader, this normally has no effect on the cost of opening an account.

The critical question is therefore:

How do we make sure commercial interests don't influence the rankings?

Our answer is simple:

Rankings are never driven by commissions. No provider can buy a higher placement on Best Futures. If a provider offers a higher commission than its competitors, that doesn't mean it's automatically ranked higher. Equally, a provider with no commercial agreement with us can rank higher than one that does. We believe this is essential for building long-term trust. In the short term it might be tempting to prioritise the products that pay the highest commission. In the long term, that would undermine the credibility of the entire site.

That's why our philosophy is simple:

Credibility matters more than commission. We also test providers we don't partner with. A common weakness of many comparison sites is that they only cover companies offering affiliate programmes. That can give a skewed picture of the market. At Best Futures we try to identify the best products first. Only afterward do we consider whether a commercial partnership exists. Not the other way around. This means we also analyse and test companies that don't have affiliate programmes, or with which we have no commercial relationship at all. In some cases, these providers can still rank very highly if the product is of high quality.

The goal is to identify the best solutions for traders. Not the most profitable solutions for us.

Not every test gets published

This is an area where our methodology differs from many other comparison services. Best Futures tests and analyses a significantly larger number of products than are ever published on the site.

We run ongoing assessments of:

• Futures brokers
• CFD brokers
• Prop firms
• Trading platforms
• Technology providers
• Data providers

Even so, not every analysis is published. In some cases we choose to end the process before publication. This can happen for several reasons.

For example:

Weak regulation

If we believe regulatory oversight or investor protection is inadequate, that alone can be enough for a product to go unreviewed.

Inadequate customer service

If support doesn't perform satisfactorily, or if we experience a lack of follow-up over time, that can affect the decision.

Technological challenges

In the case of repeated problems with platform stability, data feeds or order execution, we may choose not to publish the assessment.

Limited relevance

Some products work well but have little relevance for European traders. In such cases we may choose to prioritise other providers. Our goal isn't to build the biggest database. Our goal is to function as a quality filter.

Transparency around the methodology

We believe readers are entitled to understand how our assessments come about. That's why we publish this methodology page. We want readers, brokers, prop firms and trading platform providers alike to understand which criteria underpin our analyses. This also means our methodology isn't static. The market evolves. New technologies arrive. Rules change. Products improve. That's why the methodology is updated on an ongoing basis. When we learn something new, or when we believe the assessment criteria should be adjusted, we make this public.

Practical testing over marketing

One of our most important principles is that products should be assessed through use. We believe there's a big difference between reading about a product and actually using it. That's why we try to test products in practice.

This includes, among other things:

• Opening accounts
• Making deposits
• Testing platforms
• Dialogue with support
• Withdrawing funds
• Analysing documentation
• Testing under actual market conditions

For futures brokers, this often means using real accounts connected to actual trading platforms and clearing relationships. For CFD brokers, it means testing platform, order execution, cost and customer experience with real capital. For prop firms, it means testing both evaluation programmes and Instant Funded models. The goal is to understand how the products work in practice. Not just how they're marketed.

A long-term perspective

Many products look good at first glance. Our experience is that the biggest differences often only become visible over time. That's why we try to follow companies over months and years, not just days and weeks.

Among other things, we look at:

• Historical changes to rules
• Price changes
• Platform updates
• Support quality over time
• Payout history
• Technological stability

A company that delivers consistently over several years will normally rank higher than a company that delivers strong results for short periods.

Our most important goal

There are many sites that compare brokers and trading platforms. Our goal isn't necessarily to become the biggest. Our goal is to be the most useful to the traders who use the site. If a reader makes a better decision after using Best Futures than they otherwise would have made, we've achieved what we set out to do.

That's why our methodology builds on one simple principle:

The best recommendation doesn't come from marketing. It comes from testing, experience and documented facts.

How we choose which futures brokers, prop firms and trading platforms we analyse

Before a futures broker, CFD broker, prop firm or trading platform is covered on Best Futures, the product goes through an extensive assessment process. This is an area that often gets little attention from comparison services. Many sites publish reviews of companies shortly after discovering them, often based on information that already exists on the company's own website. At Best Futures we've chosen a different approach. We believe the quality of a review is largely determined by the quality of the selection process that happens before the analysis even starts. That's why the work begins long before an account is opened or a platform is installed.

The market is monitored continuously

We follow developments across several areas at once:

Futures brokers

We continuously monitor:

• New futures brokers
• New introducing brokers (IBs)
• New FCMs
• New clearing solutions
• Changes at established providers

Examples of companies we follow include both large institutions and smaller, specialised providers.

Trading platforms

Technology moves fast.

We therefore keep a continuous eye on:

• New trading platforms
• Updates to existing platforms
• New features
• New integrations
• Changes to licensing models

Examples include:

• NinjaTrader
• Sierra Chart
• Bookmap
• Quantower
• TradingView
• MotiveWave

but also lesser-known solutions that could become relevant in the future.

Prop firms

The prop industry is evolving faster than almost any other area of retail trading. New companies are established continuously.

At the same time, these keep changing:

• Rules
• Profit splits
• Drawdown models
• Technology solutions

We therefore follow the market on an ongoing basis and analyse new providers before deciding whether they should be tested further.

CFD brokers

The CFD market is more mature than the prop market, but it's still evolving quickly.

Among other things, we follow:

• Regulatory changes
• New product launches
• Changes in cost structure
• Acquisitions
• New trading platforms

First screening

When we identify a new provider, we start with an initial screening. This phase decides whether the company should be assessed further. The goal is to filter out products that clearly don't meet our minimum requirements. This saves both time and resources.

Regulation

The first thing we examine is regulation.

Among other things, we look at:

• Which authority provides oversight
• Jurisdiction
• Track record
• Any regulatory sanctions

For futures brokers, this is considered one of the most important areas. For CFD brokers, it's often completely decisive. In some cases the assessment ends already at this stage if we believe regulation doesn't meet the desired standard.

History

We want to understand who we're analysing.

That's why we look into:

• When the company was established
• Ownership structure
• Leadership
• Historical changes
• Acquisitions and mergers

We believe history offers important insight into how a company is run.

Reputation

We spend considerable time analysing reputation.

This includes:

• Feedback from traders
• Industry discussions
• Professional communities
• Technology forums
• Social media

That said, we put little weight on isolated comments. The goal is to identify patterns over time. Which products move forward? After the first screening, we decide whether the product should move into the next phase. At this point providers are normally split into three groups.

Group 1: Not relevant

These products don't move forward.

Common reasons can include:

• Weak regulation
• Insufficient transparency
• Technological challenges
• Little relevance for European traders

These providers are normally not covered.

Group 2: Monitored

These are companies we keep following without starting full testing.

Typical reasons:

• New provider
• Limited track record
• Product still in development

These can become relevant later.

Group 3: Full analysis

These are companies we believe deserve a thorough assessment. This is where the practical testing begins. When does the practical testing start? Many comparison sites stop at document analysis. At Best Futures, the real work only begins once we start using the product.

For futures brokers, this often includes:

• Account opening
• Documentation
• Deposits
• Platform setup
• Connecting to the data feed
• Testing orders

For prop firms, this can include:

• Purchasing a challenge
• Completing the evaluation
• Testing the rules
• Analysing support
• Analysing the payout process

For trading platforms, it includes:

• Installation
• Setup
• Testing features
• Testing under actual market conditions

We don't just analyse the product. An important difference between Best Futures and many other comparison services is that we analyse the entire ecosystem around the product.

This includes, among other things:

• Customer service
• Account managers
• Support
• Documentation
• Technology
• Infrastructure

We want to understand how the company functions as an organisation. Not just what the website looks like.

Direct dialogue with the companies

When a product proves interesting, we often establish dialogue with the company.

This can involve:

• Account managers
• Partnership managers
• Product managers
• Compliance departments
• Leadership

These conversations provide insight that's often not available through public information.

Among other things, we want to understand:

• How the company thinks about technology
• How support is organised
• How orders are handled
• How client funds are handled
• What improvements are planned

This gives a significantly better basis for decisions.

Why some products never get published

A question we often get is:

"Why don't you write about every provider you test?"

The answer is simple. We don't want to recommend products we wouldn't consider using ourselves. In some cases we identify issues that lead us to end the analysis.

This can be:

• Technological problems
• Weak support
• Unpredictable rules
• Poor communication
• Inadequate regulation

In such cases we often choose not to publish an assessment. We believe this is more valuable to readers than publishing reviews of products we can't stand behind.

From analysis to publication

Once the practical testing is complete, the data is gathered. Here the product is assessed across more than 150 individual criteria.

The result is then reviewed by people with experience from:

• Futures trading
• CFD trading
• Prop trading
• Trading platforms
• The financial markets

Only once this process is complete is the assessment published. The goal is for every review to be based on actual experience, documented criteria and practical testing. Not just marketing material.

Why this process matters

We believe the quality of a review is determined long before it's published.

That's why we spend considerable time on:

• Screening
• Analysis
• Testing
• Documentation
• Follow-up

This process lets us be more selective about which products we cover.

And most importantly:

It gives us a better basis for identifying the solutions we believe deserve the attention of European traders.

How we test futures brokers

Futures brokers are the core of Best Futures. Although we also assess CFD brokers, prop firms and trading platforms, the futures market has been the natural starting point for much of the experience behind our methodology. Futures is a professional market with a structure that differs significantly from stocks, CFDs and many other financial products. This also means the criteria we use to assess futures brokers differ from those used for other types of companies. When we analyse a futures broker, we don't just look at commissions or which platforms are offered. We try to understand the entire infrastructure around the product.

The goal is to answer one simple question:

Would we ourselves choose to trade through this broker with our own money?

Account opening and onboarding

The first test we run is onboarding. This is often the part of the customer experience that gets the least attention in marketing, but it can provide valuable insight into how the company operates. We sign up as ordinary customers and document the entire process.

Among other things, we assess:

• How intuitive the registration is
• How long the process takes
• The KYC process
• Document requirements
• Communication along the way
• Approval time
• Time until the first trade

We also look at how the company handles questions that come up along the way. If the onboarding process creates unnecessary friction, this can be an early signal of how the rest of the customer experience will play out.

Deposits and funding an account

Once the account is approved, we move to the next phase.

We assess:

• Available payment methods
• Bank transfers
• ACH solutions
• International payments
• Processing time
• Any fees

For Scandinavian traders, this is an important area. Many futures brokers are built primarily for the US market, and some solutions work better for US customers than for European traders. We look at how easy it actually is to fund an account from Norway and the rest of the Nordics.

Clearing and infrastructure

This is an area very few comparison sites cover. For futures traders, however, clearing is a fundamental part of the product.

When we assess a futures broker, we look at, among other things:

• Which FCM is used
• Clearing relationships
• Technology partners
• Data providers
• Infrastructure

Many traders naturally focus on the platform on their screen. Just as important are the systems working in the background.

A futures broker is, in practice, a combination of:

• Broker
• Clearing partner
• Data provider
• Technology provider
• Trading platform

All these parts have to work together.

Market data

Market data is critical for active traders.

That's why we assess:

• Data quality
• Update frequency
• Stability
• Latency
• Historical data
• Cost

We also look at what alternatives are offered. For futures traders this is especially important because different platforms and brokers can offer different market data solutions.

Rithmic, CQG and professional infrastructure

For active futures traders, the quality of the connection is at least as important as the platform itself.

Among other things, we assess:

• Rithmic
• CQG
• Other professional connections

We analyse:

• Stability
• Speed
• Integrations
• Platform support

Many traders choose a futures broker based partly on which data and routing solutions are supported. This is therefore an important part of the assessment.

Platform selection

A futures broker is rarely just one platform. Most offer access to several solutions.

Among other things, we assess support for:

• NinjaTrader
• Sierra Chart
• Bookmap
• Quantower
• TradingView
• MotiveWave

as well as other specialised platforms. It isn't necessarily the number of platforms that matters most. What matters is how well the integrations actually work. We test the platforms in practice. When we assess futures brokers, we don't just look at which platforms are offered. We use them. We connect the platforms to accounts.

We analyse:

• Setup
• Installation
• Connection
• Data quality
• Order handling

The goal is to understand what the experience is actually like for an active trader.

Order execution

Order execution is one of the most important criteria in the entire methodology. It's also an area where many traders experience big differences between providers.

Among other things, we assess:

• Order speed
• Routing
• Stability
• Slippage
• Order types

For active day traders, the quality of order execution can matter far more than small differences in commission.

DOM and professional order tools

Many futures traders use DOM (Depth of Market) as a central part of their trading process.

We therefore assess:

• DOM functionality
• Bracket Orders
• OCO orders
• ATM strategies
• Hotkeys

These features can be decisive for active traders who work with fast decisions and risk management.

Platform stability

This is an area we believe gets too little attention. A platform can have impressive features, but if it doesn't work when the market is moving fastest, those features lose much of their value.

Among other things, we assess:

• Uptime
• Historical stability
• Error messages
• Connection problems
• Server issues
• Data issues

We also follow incidents reported by user communities and the industry.

Downtime during market moves

An area we place particular emphasis on is how systems perform during periods of high volatility.

For example:

• CPI
• FOMC
• Non-Farm Payrolls
• Fed speeches
• Major geopolitical events

For an active futures trader, a few minutes of downtime during such events can have bigger financial consequences than several years of commissions. That's why we don't just assess whether problems occur. We also assess how the company handles them.

Customer service

Customer service is an important part of all our assessments.

When we test futures brokers, we contact support through:

• Email
• Chat
• Phone
• Ticket systems

We analyse:

• Response time
• Competence
• Problem-solving
• Follow-up

A standard reply isn't necessarily good support. It's the quality of the resolution that counts.

Account managers

At futures brokers, the account manager often becomes an important point of contact. That's why we often establish direct dialogue with account managers at the providers we assess.

Among other things, we analyse:

• Availability
• Responsiveness
• Competence
• Knowledge of the futures market
• Follow-up

These conversations often provide insight that isn't available on the company's website.

Regulation and safety

Regulation is a fundamental part of the assessment.

Among other things, we analyse:

• Regulatory authorities
• Track record
• Investor protection
• Client fund protection
• Organisational structure

For futures brokers, this is an area that can carry significant weight in the final assessment.

Cost

We don't just assess advertised commissions. We analyse the total cost of trading.

This includes, among other things:

• Commissions
• Exchange fees
• Routing costs
• Platform fees
• Data costs
• Other fees

The goal is to understand what an active trader actually pays over time.

The overall assessment

Once all the data has been gathered, we carry out an overall assessment. No futures broker is perfect. Some excel at technology. Others at customer service. Others again on price or platform selection. Our goal is therefore not to find a single universal winner. Our goal is to identify which brokers deliver high quality in the areas that matter most to active traders. That's why our futures assessments build on far more than commissions and marketing. They build on practical testing, experience, documentation and continuous follow-up.

How we test trading platforms

For many traders, the trading platform is the most important tool they use every single day. A futures broker can offer competitive pricing and good customer service, but if the platform is unstable or inefficient, this will affect the entire trading experience. This is also where many comparison sites go wrong. They assess platforms based on screenshots, feature lists or marketing material. At Best Futures we try to do the opposite. We use the platforms. Over time. Under actual market conditions. During calm markets. During high volatility. During news events. And across hundreds of hours of analysis and trading. The goal is to understand how the platform performs when it's actually used.

Not just how it looks in a product presentation.

Platforms we've tested

Over the years we've worked with and tested a broad range of trading platforms.

Among these:

• NinjaTrader
• Sierra Chart
• Bookmap
• TradingView
• Quantower
• MotiveWave
• Tradovate
• MetaTrader
• Proprietary broker platforms

Not all of these are necessarily published on Best Futures yet. But they form part of our ongoing analysis work. This gives us a comparison base that goes far beyond a single platform.

Installation and first-time setup

The first test starts before the first trade.

We assess:

• Installation process
• Account setup
• Data connections
• Connection to the broker
• Connection to clearing
• Stability at first launch

Some platforms can be extremely powerful but demanding to set up. Others are easier to get started with but have limitations for more advanced users. We document the entire process.

Usability

Usability matters, but is often misunderstood. For a beginner, simplicity can be decisive. For an experienced trader, flexibility can matter more.

That's why we assess, among other things:

• Menu structure
• Navigation
• Workflow
• Customisation options
• Workspace setup
• Multi-monitor support

We try to understand how the platform works for different types of traders.

Stability over time

This is one of the most important criteria in the entire methodology. A platform can be impressive in its first week. The real differences often show up after several months.

That's why we track:

• Uptime
• Historical problems
• Error messages
• Update history
• Connection problems
• Resource use

For active traders, stability is often more important than new features.

Platform stability during high volatility

Many platforms perform well under normal market conditions.

The real test comes during events such as:

• CPI
• FOMC
• Non-Farm Payrolls
• Rate decisions
• Geopolitical events

It's during these periods that the differences between platforms become clear.

Among other things, we assess:

• Responsiveness
• Data quality
• Latency
• Platform freezing
• Order handling

These are conditions that rarely surface in marketing.

DOM (Depth of Market)

For many futures traders, DOM is the actual workspace.

That's why we assess:

• Speed
• Readability
• Order handling
• Customisation options
• Risk tools

We also look at how DOM works together with:

• Bracket Orders
• OCO orders
• ATM strategies
• Hotkeys

These are features that can be decisive for active day traders.

Footprint Charts

Order flow has become increasingly important among futures traders.

That's why we assess the quality of:

• Footprint Charts
• Bid/ask data
• Delta
• Volume analysis

We analyse:

• Flexibility
• Usability
• Visualisation
• Customisation options

Not all platforms offer these features. Among those that do, quality varies significantly.

Volume Profile

Volume Profile is one of the most widely used analysis tools among futures traders.

We assess:

• Visualisation
• Flexibility
• Customisation options
• Integration with other tools

We also look at how the platforms handle:

• Session Profiles
• Composite Profiles
• Value Area
• Point of Control

These are features many professional traders use daily.

Replay features

Replay is one of the most underrated tools for trader development.

That's why we analyse:

• Availability
• Data quality
• Speed
• Flexibility

A good replay feature can be decisive for:

• Training
• Strategy development
• Evaluating past trades

Chart analysis

Chart analysis is more than just price charts.

We assess:

• Drawing tools
• Indicators
• Layout
• Flexibility
• Speed

We also look at how the platforms handle:

• Multiple timeframes
• Multiple monitors
• Multiple markets at once

Automation and algorithmic trading

Many traders eventually want to automate parts of their workflow.

That's why we assess:

• API support
• Strategy building
• Automation
• Backtesting
• Integrations

We don't just assess whether the features exist. We assess how well they work in practice.

Resource use

This is an area few comparison sites cover. For active traders, it can be extremely important.

Among other things, we track:

• CPU usage
• Memory usage
• Load with multiple monitors
• Load with multiple markets
• Load with advanced analysis

The differences between platforms can be significant.

Updates and product development

A trading platform is never finished being developed.

That's why we assess:

• Update frequency
• Track record
• Response to user requests
• Technological development

We view platforms that continuously improve positively. At the same time, we assess whether updates introduce new problems.

Integrations

For many futures traders, the platform is just one part of a larger ecosystem.

We therefore assess:

• Rithmic integrations
• CQG integrations
• Bookmap integrations
• TradingView integrations
• API solutions
• Third-party tools

The better the integrations work, the greater the flexibility the trader gets.

Mobile and web-based solutions

Even though many active futures traders prefer desktop solutions, we also assess:

• Mobile apps
• Web-based platforms
• Synchronisation
• Usability

This is especially relevant for traders who want to monitor the markets when they're not at their main workstation.

No platform is perfect

An important principle in our methodology is that no trading platform is perfect.

Some platforms excel at:

• Order flow
• Footprint
• Analysis

Others are stronger at:

• Usability
• Simplicity
• Mobility

That's why we don't necessarily try to identify a single universal winner. The goal is to understand which platforms suit different types of traders.

The overall assessment

When we assess a trading platform, we don't just look at which features it offers. We assess how the platform performs in practice over time.

We look at:

• Stability
• Technology
• Analysis capabilities
• Order handling
• Integrations
• Resource use
• User experience

Only once all these factors have been assessed can we form an overall picture. It's this overall assessment that forms the basis for our recommendations.

How we test prop firms

Prop trading is one of the fastest-growing segments in retail trading. In just a few years, the market has grown from a niche into a global industry with hundreds of thousands of traders and a steadily growing number of providers. At the same time, this is an area where marketing often overshadows reality. Large accounts. High profit splits. Aggressive campaigns. Discount codes. Influencers. Social media. To many traders, prop firms appear to be a fast track to bigger capital and professional trading. Our experience is that the reality is considerably more nuanced. That's why we've developed a dedicated methodology for assessing prop firms.

The goal is to identify which companies actually give traders a realistic chance of succeeding over time. We test prop firms as traders.

Many prop firm reviews are built on:

• Rules pages
• Marketing material
• Comparison tables

At Best Futures we try to do the opposite. We use the products.

We have completed:

• Challenges
• Combines
• Evaluation Accounts
• Instant Funded programmes

We don't just analyse what companies say. We analyse how the models work in practice. This often gives a completely different picture than what appears in marketing. First assessment: Is the business model sustainable? Before we assess rules, technology or profit split, we try to understand the business.

Among other things, we look into:

• History
• Ownership structure
• Leadership
• Growth
• Reputation
• Payout history

The goal is to understand whether the company comes across as a serious, long-term player. The prop trading industry has grown fast. Unfortunately, not every provider has been equally robust. That's why we place significant weight on a company's ability to operate over time. Challenge or Instant Funded? One of the first questions we assess is which model is used.

Most prop firms use one of two main models:

Evaluation (Challenge/Combine)

The trader must first document profitability through an evaluation process.

Instant Funded

The trader gets access to a funded account without a traditional evaluation. Both models have advantages and drawbacks. That's why we assess them separately. We don't try to identify one model as right for everyone. The goal is to understand how they perform in practice.

Profit target

The profit target is often the first thing a trader looks at. But the profit target alone says little.

Among other things, we assess:

• The size of the target
• The relationship between target and drawdown
• Time restrictions
• How realistic the model is

A low profit target isn't necessarily attractive if other rules make the account hard to pass. Similarly, a higher target can be perfectly manageable if the other rules are balanced.

Daily Drawdown

This is one of the most important areas in our analysis.

We assess:

• How drawdown is calculated
• When it updates
• How transparent the model is
• How the rules are communicated

Many traders underestimate the significance of daily loss limits. In practice, this is often the rule that eliminates the most accounts. That's why we analyse it very closely.

Trailing Drawdown

Trailing drawdown may be the most misunderstood rule in prop trading. Many traders focus on profit split or account size. Meanwhile they overlook how trailing drawdown affects risk.

Among other things, we assess:

• Calculation method
• Transparency
• Realism
• Practical consequences

Small differences in how trailing drawdown is calculated can have a big impact on a trader's odds of success.

End-of-Day Drawdown

In recent years, more and more prop firms have moved to End-of-Day models. This has made some programmes more trader-friendly.

We analyse:

• How the model works
• How it affects risk
• How it affects the trader's workflow

In many cases we assess End-of-Day models as easier to manage than traditional intraday models.

Consistency rules

This is an area many traders overlook. Consistency rules can have a big impact on how easy or difficult it is to qualify for a payout.

Among other things, we analyse:

• Daily limits
• Percentage-based requirements
• Trading activity requirements
• Payout requirements

The goal is to understand how realistic the model is for a disciplined trader.

Minimum trading days

Some prop firms require:

• A minimum number of trading days
• A minimum number of profitable days
• Activity across several weeks

We assess whether these requirements contribute to better risk management, or whether in practice they create unnecessary hurdles.

News trading

News trading is an area where rules vary considerably.

We analyse:

• CPI
• FOMC
• Non-Farm Payrolls
• Rate decisions
• Other market-moving events

We assess both:

• How clear the rules are
• How realistic they are

Unclear rules are assessed negatively.

Overnight rules

Not every trader is a day trader.

That's why we assess:

• Overnight positions
• Weekend exposure
• Swing trading

This is especially important for traders who use strategies other than intraday trading.

Payouts: the most important criterion

In our view, this is the single most important area in the entire prop firm analysis. A prop firm exists, in practice, to pay traders who meet the rules. That's why we weight payouts more heavily than profit split.

We analyse:

• Processing time
• Documentation requirements
• Consistency
• Track record
• Transparency

A company offering an 80% profit split with a documented payout history can be far more attractive than a company marketing a 100% profit split with no comparable track record.

Payout time

We closely track:

• How quickly requests are processed
• How quickly the money actually arrives
• How the company communicates along the way

Delays can happen at any company. What matters is how the situation is handled.

Customer service at prop firms

This is an area where differences between companies are often enormous.

We test:

• Email
• Chat
• Support systems

We assess:

• Response time
• Competence
• Problem-solving
• Follow-up

This applies especially to questions related to:

• Rules
• Accounts
• Payouts
• Technical problems

Technology and platforms

Prop firms rely heavily on third-party technology.

Among other things, we assess:

• Rithmic
• Tradovate
• NinjaTrader
• TradingView integrations

We also look at:

• Stability
• Connection problems
• Data quality

Platform stability

For a prop trader, technical problems can have immediate consequences.

That's why we track:

• Downtime
• Error messages
• Data issues
• Connection problems

We also assess how the company handles such incidents when they occur.

Rules and transparency

A good rule set isn't necessarily the most lenient one. What matters most is that it's understandable.

We assess:

• Clarity
• Consistency
• Documentation
• Communication

Rules that are hard to understand or interpret are assessed negatively. We follow the companies over time. The prop industry evolves fast.

That's why we continuously follow:

• New rules
• New products
• New technologies
• Changes to payout models
• Changes to support
• Changes to platform support

An assessment is therefore never static.

The overall assessment

When we assess a prop firm, we don't just look at how easy it is to pass a challenge.

We assess the whole journey:

• Registration
• Evaluation
• Funded account
• Customer service
• Technology
• Payouts

The goal is to identify which companies give traders the best conditions for succeeding over time. That's why our prop firm assessments build on far more than profit split and marketing. They build on practical testing, experience and documented facts.

How we test CFD brokers

The CFD market is among the largest segments in retail trading, with millions of customers globally. At the same time, it's also one of the most heavily regulated areas of private investing and trading. Even though CFDs and futures are often used to speculate on the same markets, the products are fundamentally different. That's why we use a dedicated methodology when assessing CFD brokers. Many comparison sites assess CFD brokers the same way as futures brokers. In our experience, this gives an inaccurate picture of the product.

A futures trader is often focused on:

• Order execution
• Data quality
• Clearing
• DOM
• Platform integrations

A CFD trader is often more focused on:

• Regulation
• Investor protection
• Spreads
• Financing costs
• Product range
• Usability

That's why CFD brokers are assessed through a separate model.

Regulation is the most important criterion

When we analyse a CFD broker, we always start with regulation. This isn't a coincidence. Historically, the CFD industry has seen significant differences between serious providers and companies that have operated with weaker investor protection.

Among other things, we look into:

• Which authorities provide oversight
• Which jurisdictions are used
• Track record
• Any regulatory actions

We normally view regulation from authorities such as these positively:

• FCA (United Kingdom)
• CySEC (Cyprus)
• ASIC (Australia)
• BaFin (Germany)
• Finanstilsynet (Norway)

Regulation alone isn't enough to earn a high assessment. But inadequate regulation can be enough to pull the assessment down significantly.

Investor protection

Regulation isn't just about licences. We also assess what protection mechanisms exist for the customer.

This includes, among other things:

• Segregated client funds
• Negative balance protection
• Compensation schemes
• Transparency around risk

We also analyse how these matters are communicated to customers. A serious broker should make it easy to understand what rights and protection mechanisms apply.

Account opening and onboarding

Just as with futures brokers, we go through the entire onboarding process ourselves.

We assess:

• Registration process
• KYC process
• Document requirements
• Communication
• Approval time

The goal is to understand what the process feels like for a new customer. We also look at how the company handles any challenges along the way.

Deposits and withdrawals

This is an area where differences between CFD brokers often become clear.

We analyse:

• Available payment methods
• Processing time
• Fees
• Withdrawal process
• Transparency

For many traders, being able to withdraw money is at least as important as being able to deposit it. That's why we place significant weight on the entire payment experience.

Spreads

Spreads are among the most visible costs in CFD trading.

We analyse:

• Average spreads
• Typical spreads
• Spreads during volatility
• Transparency

We try to understand what the trader actually pays under normal market conditions. Not just what's advertised.

Commissions

Some CFD brokers operate with:

• Commission-free models
• Spread-based models
• Combination models

We assess:

• Cost structure
• Transparency
• Competitiveness

The goal is to understand the total cost of trading.

Swap and financing costs

This is an area many traders underestimate. For traders holding positions across several days, financing costs can matter a great deal.

We therefore analyse:

• Overnight fees
• Swap rates
• Financing models
• Transparency

This is a particularly important area of assessment for swing traders and investors.

Product range

CFD brokers often offer a broad range of markets.

Among other things, we assess access to:

• Currencies
• Indices
• Commodities
• Stocks
• ETFs
• Cryptocurrency

We don't necessarily focus on the number of instruments alone. Quality of the offering matters more than size.

Trading platforms

Many CFD brokers offer:

• Proprietary platforms
• MetaTrader
• TradingView integrations
• Mobile solutions

We assess:

• Stability
• Usability
• Speed
• Analysis tools
• Mobile experience

The platform is assessed both as technology and as a working tool.

Mobile trading

For many CFD traders, mobile is an important part of the trading experience.

We analyse:

• Functionality
• Stability
• Usability
• Synchronisation

We don't just assess which features are offered, but how well they work in practice.

Customer service

Customer service is an area we place great weight on.

We test:

• Chat
• Email
• Phone
• Ticket systems

We assess:

• Response time
• Competence
• Follow-up
• Problem-solving

Many brokers offer fast responses. Fewer offer high-quality answers.

Account managers

At some CFD brokers, account managers become a central part of the customer experience.

We assess:

• Availability
• Competence
• Follow-up
• Product knowledge

The goal is to understand how the company supports customers after the account is opened.

Risk disclosures and transparency

CFDs are complex products. That's why we also assess how risk is communicated.

We analyse:

• Risk disclosures
• Informational material
• Educational resources
• Transparency

We believe serious brokers should make it easy to understand both the opportunities and the risk.

Technology and stability

Just as with futures brokers, we track:

• Downtime
• Error messages
• Server issues
• Historical incidents

We also assess how companies handle technical problems when they arise. No system is perfect. What matters is how the problems are handled.

CFD versus futures

An important part of our methodology is understanding the difference between the products. We therefore don't assess CFD brokers by the same criteria as futures brokers.

For futures, we place greater weight on:

• Clearing
• Order execution
• Data quality
• DOM
• Professional integrations

For CFDs, we place greater weight on:

• Regulation
• Investor protection
• Cost structure
• Usability
• Product range

This makes the assessments more relevant for the actual target audience.

The overall assessment

When we assess a CFD broker, we don't just look at cost or platform.

We assess the entire customer experience:

• Account opening
• Regulation
• Investor protection
• Cost
• Product range
• Platform
• Customer service
• Withdrawals
• Technology

The goal is to identify which brokers combine safety, competitive terms and a good user experience. That's why our CFD assessments build on far more than marketing and campaigns. They build on testing, experience and documented facts.

How we measure customer service, account managers and customer experience

Customer service is one of the areas most often underestimated when traders choose a broker, prop firm or trading platform.

Many naturally focus on:

• Cost
• Profit split
• Platform features
• Market access

Our experience is that these factors often matter less the day something goes wrong.

It's only once a trader experiences:

• Platform problems
• Deposit challenges
• Withdrawal problems
• Rule conflicts
• Technical faults
• Data problems

that the quality of customer service really becomes important. That's why customer service is a central part of our methodology.

Why we weight customer service heavily

In theory, most products work well. The challenge arises when things don't go as planned.

A company can have:

• Low costs
• Modern technology
• Attractive promotions

but if the customer doesn't get help when problems arise, the value of all these advantages is reduced. That's why we don't just assess how a product performs under normal conditions. We also assess how the company handles challenges.

This applies especially within:

• Futures
• CFD
• Prop trading

where technical problems or misunderstandings can have direct financial consequences. We test support the way ordinary customers do. When we analyse a company, we try to act like ordinary users.

We use:

• Email
• Live chat
• Phone
• Support portals
• Ticket systems

We don't just assess a single contact point. We want to understand how the entire support apparatus functions. That's why we often make several enquiries over time.

How we measure response time

Response time is one of the most visible criteria.

Among other things, we record:

• Time to first reply
• Time to final resolution
• Availability
• Opening hours

We distinguish between:

First response

How quickly the customer receives an acknowledgment.

Actual resolution

How long it takes before the problem is actually solved. This is an important distinction. An automated reply after 30 seconds has limited value if the actual solution arrives several days later.

Quality of the answers matters more than speed

Many companies focus on fast response times. In our view, the quality of the answer matters more.

Among other things, we assess:

• Technical competence
• Precision
• Understanding of the problem
• Solution orientation
• Follow-up

A company can respond quickly and still deliver poor support. Another company might take a little longer but resolve the problem effectively. We therefore try to measure the quality of the whole process.

Technical competence

This is especially important within futures and prop trading.

We often test support on areas such as:

• Data connections
• Rithmic
• CQG
• Platform setup
• Market data
• Order problems

These questions often require more competence than standard customer service. That's why we also assess how well support handles technical issues.

How support handles complex cases

Some questions are simple. Others require follow-up over time.

Among other things, we analyse:

• Escalation of cases
• Internal communication
• Follow-up
• Documentation

This often gives a good picture of how the organisation functions.

Account managers

At many futures brokers, and some CFD brokers, account managers play an important role. These are often people who work closely with customers over time. When we assess these providers, we therefore often establish direct dialogue. The goal isn't to negotiate commercial deals. The goal is to understand the business.

What we assess in account managers

Among other things, we analyse:

• Availability
• Responsiveness
• Competence
• Product understanding
• Follow-up

We also look at how well the account manager knows:

• The futures market
• The trading platforms
• The technology
• The customer's challenges

The differences between companies can be significant.

Customer service under market stress

This is an area many overlook. It's relatively easy to deliver good support on calm days.

The real test comes during:

• CPI
• FOMC
• Non-Farm Payrolls
• Major market moves
• Technological incidents

That's why we watch closely how companies communicate when the pressure is highest.

Communication during technical problems

No technological system is perfect.

Futures brokers, prop firms and trading platforms will sooner or later experience:

• Downtime
• Error messages
• Data problems
• Connection problems

What matters isn't necessarily that the problem occurs. What matters is how the company handles the situation.

Among other things, we assess:

• How quickly information is shared
• How clear the communication is
• How updates are provided
• Whether the company takes responsibility

This is part of our overall assessment.

How we assess support at prop firms

Support carries extra weight at prop firms. The reason is simple.

Many of the questions concern:

• Rules
• Payouts
• Accounts
• Verification
• Technology

Small misunderstandings can have big consequences.

That's why we place significant weight on:

• Clarity
• Consistency
• Competence

Payout-related support

This is a dedicated assessment area.

When a trader requests a payout, we assess, among other things:

• Communication
• Responsiveness
• Documentation requirements
• Follow-up

This is often one of the most important moments in the entire customer experience.

Customer experience is more than support

Customer service matters. But customer experience is broader.

We also assess:

• Websites
• Documentation
• Educational material
• Transparency
• Communication

A company that makes it easy to find information will typically generate fewer support enquiries.

How we assess long-term customer experience

Many reviews focus on the first impression. We try to understand how the experience develops over time.

That's why we track, among other things:

• Changes in support quality
• Changes in account managers
• Changes in communication
• Changes within the organisation

This gives a more realistic picture of the company.

Why customer service carries such heavy weight in our methodology

For many traders, customer service is invisible at first. Then it becomes decisive. It's easy to focus on cost and features when everything works. But the day something goes wrong, it's the quality of the people behind the product that often determines the customer experience. That's why customer service, account managers and communication carry considerable weight in our assessments. In our experience, this is one of the areas that most clearly separates good companies from truly great ones.

How we assess technology, stability and downtime

Technology is the foundation the entire trading experience is built on. A futures broker can offer competitive pricing. A prop firm can offer attractive rules. A trading platform can have advanced analysis tools. Yet the value of all these advantages is greatly reduced if the technology doesn't work when it's needed most. That's why technology, stability and operational reliability are among the most important areas in our methodology. For active traders, this isn't just a matter of comfort. It's a matter of risk.

Why technology carries such heavy weight

Many comparison sites focus on:

• Commissions
• Profit split
• Promotions
• Platform features

These are visible factors. Technology is often less visible. At the same time, technology is one of the factors that matters most when the market moves fast. For a futures trader, the difference between a stable and an unstable technological solution can add up to significant amounts over time. That's why we don't just analyse what a platform can do. We analyse how it actually performs under load.

Technology is more than the platform

When many traders think about technology, they think about what they see on screen. In practice, the infrastructure consists of far more components.

For futures trading, this can include:

• Trading platform
• Data provider
• Order routing
• Broker
• Clearing connection
• Server infrastructure
• Internet connections
• APIs

All these components have to work together. A weakness in one link of the chain can affect the entire experience. That's why we analyse the whole infrastructure. Not just the platform.

Platform stability

Stability is one of the most important criteria in our assessments.

Among other things, we track:

• Uptime
• Historical faults
• Connection problems
• Platform freezing
• Unexpected crashes
• Error messages

Many platforms perform well under normal market conditions. The differences often become clear when load increases.

What we mean by downtime

When we assess downtime, we don't just look at complete outages.

We also include:

• Partial downtime
• Data problems
• Delayed quotes
• Order problems
• Synchronisation errors
• API problems

From the trader's perspective, these problems can be just as serious as a fully shut-down platform.

The market doesn't care about excuses

This is an important principle in our methodology. The market doesn't stop because the technology fails. Prices keep moving. The risk keeps existing. That's why we assess technological problems based on how they affect the trader. Not just how the company describes the incident.

Technology during high volatility

The real test comes when the market moves fast.

Examples include:

• CPI
• FOMC
• Non-Farm Payrolls
• Rate decisions
• Geopolitical events
• Unexpected news

During these periods, the load increases on:

• Servers
• Data providers
• Order routing
• Trading platforms

It's often here that the differences between technological solutions become visible.

Data quality

For active traders, market data is critical.

Among other things, we assess:

• Stability
• Update frequency
• Historical data
• Latency
• Data integrity

A trading platform is never better than the data it receives. That's why we analyse data quality as a separate part of the assessment.

Order flow and order routing

This is an area many retail traders don't think about. Yet it matters a great deal.

Among other things, we assess:

• Speed
• Stability
• Routing solutions
• Integration between platform and broker

For futures traders, the quality of order flow can matter more than small differences in commission.

How we assess Rithmic and CQG

For futures traders, these are among the most important technological components.

Among other things, we assess:

Stability

How robust is the solution over time?

Integrations

How well do the integrations work with different platforms?

Data quality

How reliable is the market data?

Performance under load

How do the systems perform during periods of high activity? Many futures traders choose a broker partly based on these technological solutions. That's why they form an important part of the assessment.

CPU usage and resource use

This is an area few comparison sites cover. For active traders, it can be extremely important.

Among other things, we track:

• CPU usage
• Memory usage
• Load with multiple monitors
• Load with multiple markets
• Load with advanced analysis

The differences between platforms can be significant.

Especially for traders who use:

• Footprint Charts
• Volume Profile
• DOM
• Market Replay
• Multiple workstations

APIs and automation

Modern trading isn't just about manual execution.

That's why we assess:

• API support
• Stability
• Documentation
• Integrations
• Automation

We also look at how well the platforms support:

• Algorithmic trading
• Custom-built solutions
• Third-party software

How companies handle technical problems

No technological system is perfect.

Every company will sooner or later experience:

• Server issues
• Data problems
• Downtime
• Integration faults

That's why we don't just assess whether faults occur. We also assess how the company handles the situation.

Communication during incidents

This is an area that often separates good companies from the very best.

Among other things, we look at:

• How quickly information is shared
• How clear the communication is
• How often updates are given
• How transparent the company is

A technical incident can be frustrating. Lack of information often makes it worse. Does the company take responsibility? This is a question we always ask.

When problems occur, we analyse:

• How the situation is explained
• How customers are followed up with
• How the incident is documented
• How improvements are implemented

Companies that communicate openly and take responsibility are normally assessed more positively.

Track record matters

We don't assess technology based on a single incident. We look at patterns over time.

That's why we track, among other things:

• Repeated problems
• Historical incidents
• Update history
• Technological development

The goal is to understand how robust the infrastructure actually is.

Why technology matters so much

Many traders naturally focus on cost. Our experience is that technology often matters more in the long run.

The difference between:

• Stable and unstable technology
• Good and poor data quality
• Robust and weak infrastructure

can, over time, be far more important than the difference between two commission models. That's why technology carries considerable weight in our assessments.

The overall assessment

When we assess technology, we don't just look at features.

We assess:

• Stability
• Data quality
• Infrastructure
• Order flow
• Integrations
• Resource use
• Track record
• Communication

The goal is to understand how the product performs when the trader actually needs it. Not just how it works under ideal conditions. It's this overall assessment that underpins our analyses of futures brokers, prop firms and trading platforms.

How we rank and weight our assessments

Every review on Best Futures builds on the same underlying philosophy:

No single factor should decide the final result on its own. This is an important principle.

Many traders choose a broker, prop firm or trading platform based on one factor:

• Lowest commission
• Highest profit split
• Most markets
• Most features

Our experience is that the best products are rarely the best in just one area. The best products are the ones that deliver a strong overall experience over time. That's why we use a structured assessment model that combines quantitative and qualitative criteria.

More than 150 individual assessment criteria

Every product analysed on Best Futures is assessed across more than 150 individual data points.

These data points cover, among other things:

Safety and regulation

• Regulation
• Investor protection
• Track record
• Ownership structure

Cost

• Commissions
• Platform fees
• Data costs
• Financing costs

Technology

• Stability
• Data quality
• Integrations
• Uptime

Customer service

• Response time
• Competence
• Follow-up
• Problem-solving

User experience

• Account opening
• Platform setup
• Documentation
• Usability

Product quality

• Market access
• Functionality
• Tools
• Trading opportunities

Not every criterion is weighted equally. The weighting depends on which type of product is being analysed.

Why we use different weightings

A futures broker and a prop firm are fundamentally different products. It would therefore be wrong to use identical assessment models.

For example:

A futures broker should be weighted heavily on:

• Order execution
• Technology
• Clearing
• Data quality

While a prop firm should be weighted heavily on:

• Rules
• Payouts
• Drawdown models
• Support

Similarly, a trading platform is assessed differently from both of these. That's why we've developed dedicated weighting models for each category.

How we weight futures brokers

When we assess futures brokers, the following areas carry the greatest weight: clearing, market data, order execution, technology, margin and platform selection.

This means a broker isn't necessarily ranked highly just because commissions are low. If the technology is weak or customer service doesn't meet the desired standard, this will affect the final result.

How we weight trading platforms

For trading platforms, the assessment model is different. Here, functionality and stability are at the centre. This means a platform with many features doesn't necessarily get a high ranking if stability is weak.

How we weight prop firms

Prop firms are assessed by a model that reflects how the products are actually used. This means profit split alone doesn't decide the ranking. A company with a high profit split can get a lower assessment than a company with a lower profit split if the payout process is weaker.

How we weight CFD brokers

For CFD brokers, we place the greatest weight on regulation and investor protection. This reflects how we believe CFD products should be assessed.

Not every criterion can be measured mathematically

A common misconception is that every assessment can be reduced to a spreadsheet. Reality is more complex.

Many factors can be measured directly:

• Commissions
• Spreads
• Fees
• Number of markets
• Uptime

Other factors require experience and judgement.

For example:

• Quality of customer service
• Competence of account managers
• User experience
• Documentation
• Communication during technical problems

These are harder to quantify. Yet they're often decisive for the overall experience.

Practical testing carries high value

That's why we combine quantified criteria with practical testing.

This includes, among other things:

• Our own accounts
• Our own deposits
• Our own withdrawals
• Actual trading
• Support enquiries
• Dialogue with account managers

This gives a more realistic picture than pure document analysis alone can provide.

Why low costs don't always mean a high ranking

This is one of the most common questions we get. Many assume the cheapest provider should automatically rank highest. Our experience is that this rarely holds true.

Example:

A futures broker can offer very low commissions.

At the same time, the broker might have:

• Limited support
• Weak platform stability
• Fewer platform choices
• A poorer user experience

In such cases, a somewhat more expensive provider can offer significantly higher value to the trader. That's why we assess the overall experience. Not just the cost.

Why profit split doesn't decide the ranking

The same applies to prop firms.

Many advertise:

• 90% profit split
• 95% profit split
• 100% profit split

This can look attractive.

At the same time, the company might have:

• Difficult rules
• A long payout process
• Weak support

In our assessment, it matters more that the trader actually receives payouts than how high a profit split is advertised. That's why payouts carry significantly more weight than profit split alone.

Rankings aren't permanent

The market keeps evolving. New products launch. Rules change. Technology improves. Support organisations are rebuilt. That's why no ranking is permanent. We update assessments when we believe there have been material changes. This ensures our rankings reflect the current situation, not how the market looked several years ago.

The goal of the methodology

The goal of the assessment model isn't to find a single universal winner. The goal is to identify which products deliver high quality in the areas that matter most to active traders.

That's why we combine:

• Documentation
• Practical testing
• Experience
• Technical analysis
• Structured criteria

This gives an assessment basis that's far broader than commissions, marketing and promotions. And it's this that forms the foundation for every ranking published on Best Futures.

How Best Futures makes money — and why it doesn't affect our rankings

Transparency is an important part of our methodology. When a reader visits Best Futures to find information about futures brokers, prop firms, CFD brokers or trading platforms, we believe they should also understand how the site is funded. That's why we want to be open about how the business model works, how we handle commercial partnerships, and what principles underpin our assessments.

The goal is simple:

Readers should be able to trust that our rankings are based on analysis and testing — not on who pays the most. How is Best Futures funded?

Best Futures is funded through a combination of:

• Affiliate partnerships
• Commercial partnerships
• Advertising
• Our own projects and services through FX Securities

This is a common model among international financial media and comparison services. When a reader clicks a link from Best Futures and later opens an account with a broker or a prop firm, we may receive a commission from the provider. This commission normally doesn't affect the cost to the customer. The customer doesn't pay extra because they came from Best Futures. Why do we use the affiliate model?

The affiliate model makes it possible to invest significant resources in:

• Testing
• Analysis
• Content production
• Updates
• Technology
• Research

Without this funding, it would be difficult to maintain the ongoing testing and follow-up our methodology requires. We therefore believe the affiliate model can work well — as long as it's handled in a transparent and responsible way. Can companies buy better rankings? No. This is one of the most important principles in our entire methodology.

No provider can buy:

• A higher placement
• A better assessment
• A recommendation

Rankings are determined by the overall assessment carried out through the methodology described in this article.

This means that:

• A partner can rank lower than a non-partner.
• A non-partner can rank as number one.
• A provider can lose its placement if quality declines over time.

This is essential to our credibility. We also cover companies we don't partner with. Another important principle is that we don't limit our analyses to companies that offer affiliate programmes. Many comparison sites build their content around which companies have commercial programmes. We try to do the opposite. We start by identifying the most relevant products. Only afterward do we assess whether a commercial partnership exists. Not the other way around. This means we can also publish analyses of companies we have no commercial relationship with at all.

Why we don't partner with everyone

Not every company we assess becomes a commercial partner. There are several reasons for this.

In some cases:

• The company doesn't offer an affiliate programme.
• The terms aren't relevant.
• We have different views on how the partnership should work.
• We believe the product doesn't meet the desired quality standard.

This doesn't necessarily affect the assessment. A company can still be covered if we believe it's relevant to our readers. What happens if a company changes? The market is constantly evolving. Products improve. Rules change. Customer service is built up or scaled back. Technology develops. That's why we monitor companies on an ongoing basis.

If we believe quality has changed materially, this can lead to:

• Updated assessments
• Changed rankings
• New recommendations

No placement is permanent. Every assessment has to be earned over time.

Why credibility matters more than commission

In the short term, it can be tempting for any comparison service to prioritise the products that generate the highest revenue. In the long term, we believe this is a poor strategy.

The reason is simple:

If readers lose trust in the assessments, the entire site loses its value. Credibility is built over time. It can disappear very quickly. That's why we try to think long-term. The goal isn't to maximise commissions from individual providers. The goal is to build a resource that traders find useful and credible, year after year.

Why we publish this methodology

Many sites publish rankings without explaining how they arrived at the results. We believe readers deserve better insight. That's why we've chosen to publish our methodology.

We want:

• Traders
• Brokers
• Prop firms
• Platform providers
• Journalists
• Search engines

to be able to understand how our assessments come about. This openness makes it easier to evaluate our recommendations critically and independently. We believe that's a good thing.

Our responsibility to readers

Best Futures is built first and foremost for the traders who use the site.

That means our most important responsibility isn't to:

• Partners
• Advertisers
• Providers

Our most important responsibility is to readers.

That's why we try to answer one simple question in every analysis we publish:

Would we ourselves consider using this product with our own money? If the answer is no, we shouldn't recommend it to others either.

Summary

Best Futures is funded through affiliate partnerships, commercial partnerships and advertising.

At the same time, our underlying philosophy is simple:

• Rankings can't be bought.
• Products are assessed through testing and analysis.
• We also cover companies we don't partner with.
• Assessments are updated when the market changes.
• Readers' trust matters more than short-term revenue.

We don't believe the best recommendation comes from marketing. We believe it comes from testing, experience, documentation and continuous follow-up. These are the principles that underpin every assessment published on Best Futures.

Frequently asked questions about the methodology

Here we give short answers to the most common questions about how Best Futures tests, weights and updates its assessments.