No-Revenue-Share Prop Firm Software Market 2026
“Keep 100%” and “0% revenue share” have become visible prop-tech positioning themes. Our research shows that zero-share vendors still use materially different fixed, usage and capacity economics, so the label is best treated as one commercial dimension.
Explicit no-share signals in our researched set
| Provider | Public positioning | Other economic signal |
|---|---|---|
| Tradaxi | 0% revenue share | Tiered monthly from $700; capacity by plan |
| Execurve / PropScale | No revenue share | From €740/mo by trader count |
| Propify | 0% share | $1,500/mo + $2,500 setup published |
| PropForge | No revenue share | Flat monthly + active-account component |
| Asgard | 0% / no revenue share | Flat setup + fixed monthly, quote |
Finding 1: zero share does not imply fixed price
PropForge combines no-share positioning with an active-account component, while Tradaxi uses tier capacity and Execurve uses trader-count pricing. Operators still need a volume forecast.
Finding 2: no-share messaging competes directly with percentage models
PropLabel publishes revenue-share/minimum economics, and PropSuite uses net-profit participation in a broader capital-backed relationship. The market therefore offers buyers a real choice over who participates in upside and who carries fixed-cost risk.
Finding 3: included infrastructure matters
A zero-share provider with external platform/data charges can have higher TCO than a more bundled offer. Revenue share should not be optimized in isolation.
Finding 4: “0%” must be checked against the signed order
Commercial agreements can include variable fees that are not described by the headline. For example, FXPropTech's standard public tiers are not framed around a headline revenue share, but its terms allow variable fees in a Service Order. We therefore avoid labeling every possible FXPropTech contract “zero share.”
Buyer implication
If retaining upside is a priority, shortlist explicit no-share vendors and compare 12/24-month fixed/usage cost at expected scale. Then compare against percentage models under the same revenue/profit scenarios.
Supporting analysis: zero-share cost comparison, share crossover formula and commercial model taxonomy.
Methodology
We include providers only where current researched public material supports the no/zero-revenue-share positioning. This is not a ranking or guarantee of total cost.