Prop Firms Compare / Research centre
Prop Firm Research & Industry Data
Original studies, verified source analysis and data-led insights into the prop trading industry. Explore what firms actually offer, how their rules compare and what published trader-outcome evidence can—and cannot—tell us.
Figures above are from the PFC database snapshot dated 21 October 2026. They describe the firms we track, not the size of the entire global industry.
Good prop firm decisions start with better evidence. Headline challenge prices, profit splits and marketing claims rarely tell the whole story. This research hub brings together PFC’s original programme-level datasets, analyses of official company disclosures and clearly documented methods.
Our research covers both what firms advertise—such as evaluation models, drawdown limits and payout eligibility—and what can be substantiated about outcomes. We distinguish programme counts from trader counts, published pass rates from independent estimates, and payout eligibility from actual payments.
Published research & data studies
Start with original PFC data, then explore our analysis of publicly reported trader outcomes.
2026 industry report · 25 citable statistics
Prop Firm Statistics 2026: 160 Programmes Analysed
Which evaluation model is most common? How widely available is MT5? What are the recorded challenge fees, profit splits and first-payout terms? This flagship report uses a defined Supabase snapshot to answer those questions with counts, denominators, charts and a fully disclosed methodology.
- Evaluation models
- Challenge pricing
- Trading platforms
- Drawdown rules
- Profit splits & payouts
How Many Traders Pass Prop Firm Challenges?
An evidence-led review of reported challenge pass rates, the difference between account-level and trader-level success, payout outcomes and the limits of industry-wide failure claims. Includes a clearly labelled PFC probability simulation.
Read the pass-rate studyA useful distinction: our industry statistics report measures programme offerings in PFC’s database; our pass-rate study reviews third-party and firm-published outcome disclosures. Neither is a census of the entire prop trading industry.
What our research examines
Three areas where clearer data can change how traders and publishers interpret prop firm claims.
Programme models & cost
How one-step, two-step, instant and subscription programmes differ; advertised fees versus activation, reset and recurring costs; and how account size changes the comparison.
Explore model statisticsDrawdown & trading rules
Static versus trailing drawdown, daily loss, profit targets, consistency rules and platform availability—always interpreted at the correct programme and trading stage.
Explore rule statisticsPass rates & payouts
What published performance disclosures measure, why denominators matter, and how payout eligibility differs from successful withdrawals or long-term trader profitability.
Explore outcome evidenceResearch in development
Our editorial roadmap. These are planned studies, not published findings.
Prop Firm Rule Changes Tracker
A sourced log of important changes to evaluation rules, pricing, platforms and payout policies, with dates and where possible before-and-after comparisons.
Rule changes / transparencyProp Firm Drawdown Study
A comparison of stated loss limits and effective risk buffers across selected account types, including why similar headline drawdowns can behave differently.
Risk models / evaluation rulesProp Firm Payout Policy Study
A structured examination of profit splits, first-payout eligibility, payment schedules and conditions that traders should check before choosing a programme.
Payout terms / policy analysisNew studies will become clickable once published. We do not publish statistics for future studies before their dataset, methodology and checks are complete.
How PFC produces research
Documented inputs, reproducible denominators and clear editorial boundaries.
Every report should tell readers where the information came from, what was counted, when it was checked and what the data cannot prove. Our research follows the same core process, while the detailed methodology on each report explains any study-specific choices.
Collect & source
Start with official programme terms, pricing pages, help centres, company disclosures and relevant primary documentation.
Normalise the data
Structure firm, programme, account and phase records so unlike products or trading stages are not silently treated as equivalent.
Define the sample
State the observation unit, exclusions, sample size, reporting period and denominator for each calculation.
Disclose uncertainty
Show verification dates, missing fields, limitations and the difference between advertised terms and independently observed outcomes.
Research and commercial content are different
Prop Firms Compare may earn affiliate commissions elsewhere on the site, but a firm’s commercial relationship does not determine a research result. Our studies are not recommendations to purchase a specific account, and published programme terms can change.
For journalists, bloggers & researchers
Find quotable evidence without losing the context that makes it accurate.
Need a statistic you can cite?
Each PFC study is designed to make its headline figures traceable. When quoting our work, identify the report, snapshot date, relevant sample size and exact measure. If a statistic describes listed programmes, do not describe it as the share of all active traders or all firms worldwide.
Get the suggested citation- Link to the original study—not just this hub
- Include the report date or data snapshot
- Keep the numerator and denominator together
- Preserve key limitations and source definitions
- Check for an updated edition before publishing
For corrections or research enquiries, see our editorial and corrections policy.
Research FAQs
How to interpret the hub and use the figures responsibly.
What is included in the PFC prop firm research library?
The hub brings together original PFC database studies and separate analyses of published industry evidence. The 2026 industry statistics report examines 160 active programmes from 23 firms at a particular snapshot. The pass-rate study compares company-reported data and includes a separately labelled simulation.
Do these studies represent the entire prop trading industry?
No. Database statistics represent the firms and programmes tracked by PFC, subject to the selection criteria on the individual report. Published pass-rate data also varies by firm, period and measurement method. We do not claim one universal industry figure where reliable comparable evidence does not exist.
How often is the research updated?
Each report gives its own publication or snapshot date. Individual source checks and database record verification dates may differ from the report publication date. We update studies when material evidence or dataset changes justify a revised analysis rather than automatically treating every page view as fresh verification.
Can journalists quote or link to PFC research?
Yes. You can quote individual findings with appropriate attribution and a link to the original report. Please include the measurement scope, date and relevant limitations, particularly for pricing, challenge pass rates and payout figures.