Prop Tech Public Evidence Monitor 2026
A reproducible snapshot of how PFV classified public evidence across seven prop-firm technology providers reviewed in its due-diligence dataset. This monitor describes the evidence PFV located and classified. It does not claim that an undocumented feature, right or commitment does not exist.
Dataset scope
The current dataset contains seven provider passports: four marked matcher eligible and three marked research-only / verification hold. Research status is separate from product quality, evidence confidence and commercial relationships.
Public-evidence snapshot
| Signal reviewed | Classification counts in 7-provider dataset | What the count means |
|---|---|---|
| Data ownership | Evidenced 1 · Provider-stated 1 · Partial 2 · Unknown 3 | How PFV classified the public material it reviewed about ownership rights. Partial and unknown must not be read as absence of ownership. |
| Data export / portability | Evidenced 1 · Provider-stated partial 1 · Partial 2 · Unknown 3 | Whether reviewed public material evidenced or described export/portability. Integration or migration marketing is not silently converted into full exit portability. |
| APIs / webhooks | Evidenced 2 · Provider-stated 1 · Partial 2 · Unknown 2 | Classification of public API/webhook evidence in the passports. An unknown does not establish that no API exists. |
| SLA / uptime evidence | Provider-stated variants 6 · Unknown 1 | Provider-stated uptime, targets and tiered SLA statements are preserved as stated rather than treated as independently verified contractual guarantees. |
| Migration | Provider-stated 5 · Unknown 1 · Not separately recorded 1 | Classification of migration-related material recorded in the dataset. A migration statement does not by itself prove complete termination/export rights. |
| Exit & portability | Partial 4 · Unknown 3 | Whether reviewed evidence establishes usable exit rights, export scope and termination portability. Partial does not mean inadequate. |
| Control & authority | Partial 4 · Unknown 3 | Evidence about who controls critical operational decisions. Unknown means exact authority was not established publicly. |
| Integration dependency | Partial 5 · Unknown 2 | Evidence about API/webhook portability, credentials and integration control beyond simple feature availability. |
| Operational continuity | Partial 7 | All seven records contain some continuity evidence or boundary, but none is silently upgraded into a complete contractual continuity guarantee. |
2026 Evidence Brief: three procurement questions the public record leaves open
The aggregate is small by design: seven provider passports, reviewed against the same evidence-state rules. It is not a market-share survey. Within that reviewed set, three recurring public-evidence gaps stand out for buyers doing pre-contract due diligence.
| Buyer question | Observed evidence state | Procurement implication |
|---|---|---|
| Who owns the operating data, and what can be exported? | Data ownership: 3 of 7 unknown. Data export: 3 of 7 unknown. | Public product material alone may not establish the exact ownership, export scope, format or termination rights. Buyers can move these questions into the contract and due-diligence process rather than infer them from feature pages. |
| What happens if the buyer needs to leave or migrate? | Exit & portability: 3 of 7 unknown; 4 of 7 partial. | None of these classifications means exit is impossible. They show that the reviewed public evidence did not establish a complete exit-and-portability position for any record in this snapshot. |
| What continuity commitment is actually evidenced? | Operational continuity: 7 of 7 partial. SLA: 6 of 7 provider-stated variants. | Public continuity and uptime statements can help discovery, but they should not be silently treated as complete contractual guarantees. Contract scope, remedies, transition support and current primary documentation still matter. |
What this monitor does not measure
- It does not rank providers from best to worst.
- It does not measure software quality, security, profitability or customer satisfaction.
- It does not infer contractual rights from marketing copy.
- It does not treat missing public evidence as evidence that a capability or right is absent.
- It does not convert provider-stated claims into independently verified facts.
Why publish evidence counts?
Technology buyers often need to know not only what a provider says it offers, but what can be established before contract review. Publishing the evidence-state distribution makes PFV's own research limitations visible and gives researchers a reproducible way to cite the dataset without turning uncertainty into a vendor allegation.
How to cite the data safely
A precise formulation is: “In PFV's seven-provider public-evidence dataset, X records were classified as [state] for [signal].” Avoid formulations such as “X providers do not offer [capability]” unless a separate primary source actually establishes that fact.
Methodology and corrections
PFV separates operational dependency, evidence confidence and public transparency. Provider-stated information remains provider-stated; unknown remains unknown; conflicting evidence should remain visible until stronger evidence resolves it. Public information changes, so governing contracts and current primary sources should be checked before a buyer relies on any operational assumption.