Prop Firm Software Pricing Transparency Index 2026

Prop-firm technology vendors use very different commercial models. This research asks a narrow procurement question: what can a buyer establish about each model from public information before entering a sales process?

Two separate layers: public pricing evidence is market research; PFV matching eligibility is an operational decision based on additional verification. A vendor can publish useful pricing while remaining outside active introductions.

Match current eligible providers to my budget →Build a comparable buying brief

Public commercial disclosure

Provider	Public disclosure	What a buyer can establish	PFV research / routing note
FXPropTech	Numerical tiers	Monthly tiers, setup fees, account allowances and overage economics	Current research/matcher candidate; confirm final service order
PropLabel	Numerical performance-linked model	Onboarding price plus recurring revenue-share/minimum structure	Current research/matcher candidate; model revenue scenarios before comparing with fixed SaaS
PropFirmCRM	Model disclosed; quote required	Monthly minimum + per-active-account structure, no-revenue-share positioning and custom tiers	Current research candidate; exact economics require a written quote
Propriotec	Model disclosed; quote required	Flat-monthly positioning with no setup/per-account/revenue-share claims in current PFV research	Current research/matcher candidate; request current written quote
PropForge	Model disclosed; quote required	Flat monthly plus active-account component stated publicly	Current research candidate; numerical scenario requires quote
Asgard Group	Model disclosed; quote required	Implementation + fixed recurring licence, 0% revenue-share positioning and published minimum-term structure	Current research candidate; request written current quote
PropSuite	Numerical profit-linked model	Setup, $0 monthly platform fee and defined net-profit share in researched offer	Different capital-backed economics; do not compare as ordinary fixed SaaS
Tradaxi	Numerical tiers	Published plan levels, setup fees, trader allowances and 0%-revenue-share positioning	Useful market reference; verification/maturity review kept separate from active routing
Execurve / PropScale	Numerical entry anchor	Published entry price and trader allowance provide a modelable base reference	Useful market reference; current verification status kept separate from active routing
PropsEngine	Numerical tiers	Public monthly tiers, setup fee and capacity provide market-price evidence	Verification hold; not treated as an active introduction candidate
Fxward	Numerical usage pricing	Public per-account rates by volume band, no setup fee and no revenue-share positioning; supporting portal/software scope must still be normalized	External market reference only; not added to PFV matcher by this research inclusion
Fintatech	Numerical hybrid tiers	Public setup fees, monthly base SaaS and account thresholds/overages create modelable volume scenarios	External market reference only; provider verification and matcher eligibility are separate
PropSim	Conflicting public signals	Official materials have shown pricing information that requires reconciliation	Resolve current official pricing in writing before relying on a scenario
ZenPropTech	Quote-led	No-revenue-share/custom-deployment positioning; exact economics require sales scoping	Research inclusion does not by itself imply introduction eligibility
Propify	Needs clarification	Official pages have displayed pricing signals that require reconciliation	Resolve official-source discrepancy before relying on price
L7 Prime	Quote-led	Buyer pricing is not sufficiently numerical in the current public dataset for a normalized scenario	Use written quote for comparison
FPFX Tech	Quote-led	Core buyer pricing requires sales engagement	Commercial introduction eligibility is handled separately from research inclusion
PropFirmsTech	Quote-led	Exact B2B buyer pricing is not established publicly in the current dataset	Use written quote for comparison

How to read this dataset

Numerical tiers means public numbers allow at least one meaningful commercial scenario to be calculated. Numerical usage pricing means the buyer can calculate a software charge directly from a stated billing unit and volume band. Numerical hybrid tiers combines a base subscription or included capacity with thresholds or overages. Model disclosed; quote required means the charging mechanism is visible but key numbers are not. Quote-led means a buyer needs sales scoping before a useful base scenario can be calculated. These are descriptions of disclosure, not quality or trust scores.

Why small-firm economics now need their own test

Usage-priced offers make a weakness in traditional 500-account plans easier to see. If a buyer launches with 25 or 100 live accounts, a fixed 500-account tier can create a very different effective cost per active account than it does at full utilization. That does not make usage pricing universally cheaper: included scope, trader portal, white-label, APIs, platform connectivity and support can differ materially. Buyers should calculate both the invoice and the cost per active account at the volume they actually expect to run.

The 500-trader benchmark now separates fixed-capacity and usage-priced scenarios rather than pretending they are identical products.

Why PropFirmCRM changes the comparison

PropFirmCRM illustrates why a binary “public pricing / no pricing” classification is insufficient. Its current public pricing describes a monthly-minimum plus per-active-account structure and no revenue share, while the actual Starter, Growth and Enterprise economics are custom. Buyers can therefore understand the cost mechanism before a call, but cannot responsibly calculate a first-year total without a quote. See the PropFirmCRM pricing analysis.

Why numerical pricing still needs normalization

Public numbers are only useful when the billing unit is understood. Vendors charge against traders, active accounts, firms, credits, revenue, net profit or fixed licences. A €1,000 minimum, a $1,000 fixed subscription and a $1,000 charge at a particular account volume are not economically equivalent.

PFV therefore separates three questions: what is public?, what does the model cost at the buyer's volume?, and is the provider currently eligible for a PFV introduction?

What changed in the September 29 refresh?

We added external market evidence for usage-priced and hybrid account-tier models, expanded the disclosure taxonomy, and added a small-firm utilization test. These additions are research references only and do not add providers to PFV's matcher. We also retained PropFirmCRM's current custom monthly-minimum/per-active-account model and the existing separation between pricing research and introduction eligibility.

What buyers should request from every vendor

setup/implementation fee
minimum monthly commitment
billing-unit definition and included volume
overage price and tier-change rules
revenue/profit share, if any
which portal, white-label, API and platform components are included
contract minimum and termination notice
mandatory third-party costs
migration/export charges
legal contracting entity and jurisdiction
support/SLA commitments

Normalize before deciding: ask every shortlisted provider to quote the same launch scope and the same 25 / 100 / 500 / 2,000 / 10,000 active-volume assumptions. That exposes both under-utilized capacity and later overage/tier economics.

Match providers to my commercial model →See the normalized cost benchmark Software cost guide

Research limitations

This index reflects public material recorded in PFV research through 29 September 2026. Prices and commercial terms can change, negotiated deals may differ, and public product pages do not establish the final contract. External market references have not been made matcher-eligible merely by inclusion here. Unknown or quote-led pricing is not evidence of poor product quality. Final procurement should use current written terms.