Execurve vs PropForge 2026
Execurve's PropScale and PropForge both avoid taking a percentage of prop-firm revenue. The commercial difference is important: Execurve publishes a €740/month starting point tied to trader count, while PropForge describes a flat monthly platform fee plus a small per-active-account fee but does not publish the amount.
Execurve vs PropForge at a glance
| Factor | Execurve / PropScale | PropForge |
|---|---|---|
| PFV status | Verification hold · research only | Research comparison; verify current eligibility |
| Revenue share | No | No |
| Public entry price | From €740/mo up to 500 traders | Not published |
| Variable software component | Higher tiers by trader count | Small per-active-account fee |
| CRM / lifecycle | Yes | Yes |
| Risk | Yes | Yes |
| Affiliate system | Native | Operational stack includes broad firm tooling; confirm current module scope |
| API | REST, WebSockets, webhooks, sandbox published | Confirm current API scope in quote |
| Migration | Specific public migration offer | Migration support stated |
Pricing and scaling economics
Execurve has published PropScale from €740 per month for up to 500 traders with no revenue share, and says hosting, support and platform updates are included. Higher tiers add capacity and functionality, but buyers need the full schedule to model larger firms. Because Execurve is currently on verification hold, these figures should be used as research inputs and reconfirmed directly before procurement.
PropForge states that it never takes revenue share and instead charges a flat monthly platform fee plus a small per-active-account fee. That creates a different cost curve: the base may be predictable, but active-account volume remains a billing driver.
For a meaningful comparison, request cost at 500, 2,000, 10,000 and 25,000 relevant billing units. Also force a common definition: Execurve's trader-count billing and PropForge's active-account billing may not measure the same thing.
Execurve research strengths
PropScale publicly documents a broad CRM operating layer: challenge sales, KYC, evaluation rules, funded accounts, payouts, affiliates, marketing attribution and risk monitoring. Its developer offering explicitly lists REST APIs, WebSockets, webhooks and a sandbox. It also publishes integrations with IntraQuote WebTrader, MT4/MT5, cTrader and TradeLocker, with other integrations available on demand.
For firms migrating from another CRM, Execurve has advertised migration of traders, accounts and history, two months free and up to 10 workflow-critical features built at no charge. These are provider claims and should be reconfirmed and written into the commercial proposal before they influence a buying decision.
PropForge research strengths
PropForge's positioning is operator-led. The provider says the platform grew from technology used to run its own prop operation and now powers 25+ firms. Its public materials emphasize dedicated server infrastructure, payout management, real-time analytics and operational experience with fraud and scaling. Those scale and experience figures are provider claims rather than independently audited metrics.
The no-revenue-share structure is commercially attractive, but the missing price means buyers should resist comparing it with Execurve until the monthly base and active-account unit cost are known.
Platform support
Execurve has the clearer published platform matrix: IntraQuote, MetaTrader 4/5, cTrader and TradeLocker, plus integrations on request. We have not assigned PropForge a platform-support list in our matcher without equivalent primary-source confirmation. Buyers should request a current supported-platform schedule directly from any provider rather than infer support from generic integration language.
Migration and lock-in
A no-revenue-share contract can still create expensive lock-in. Ask providers for database export rights, historical trade export, challenge state, payout history, affiliate records, KYC references, configuration export and termination assistance. A slightly higher monthly fee can be cheaper than a difficult future migration.
How should buyers use this comparison?
Use Execurve as a research reference when published entry pricing, a documented developer layer, broad CRM scope and known trading-platform integrations matter. Use PropForge as a research candidate when operator-built positioning, dedicated infrastructure and a no-revenue-share model appeal. For an active PFV introduction, use Get Matched to see which providers currently clear the operational verification screen.
Questions to send vendors
- What is our total month-one and year-one software cost?
- How exactly is a billable trader or active account defined?
- Which third-party fees are excluded?
- Which trading platforms are supported in our exact plan?
- What data can we export without vendor assistance?
- What happens commercially at 2,000, 10,000 and 25,000 accounts/traders?
- What SLA and incident-response terms are contractual?
- What are termination and migration obligations?
FAQ
Does Execurve take revenue share?
PropScale's published material has stated pricing from €740 per month and no revenue share. PFV currently keeps Execurve on verification hold, so buyers should reconfirm the current offer directly before relying on it.
Does PropForge take revenue share?
PropForge's official site explicitly says it does not. It describes a flat monthly platform fee plus a small per-active-account fee.
Which publishes clearer pricing?
Execurve has published a clearer starting figure. PropForge currently requires a quote to establish the base and per-active-account amounts.