No Revenue Share Prop Firm Software 2026
A 0% revenue-share headline can make technology cost easier to forecast as sales grow, but it does not mean zero variable cost. The useful comparison is the complete commercial model: setup, recurring minimum, account or usage charges, third-party costs, contract terms and the operating scope included.
Current no-revenue-share market map
| Provider | Public commercial signal | Price visibility | PFV use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propriotec | Flat monthly; provider states no setup, per-account or revenue-share fee | Exact current monthly quote required | Current matcher candidate |
| FXPropTech | Tiered SaaS; no headline revenue-share model in PFV's current pricing research | Published setup + monthly tiers | Current matcher candidate |
| Asgard Group | Setup + fixed recurring licence; provider states 0% revenue share and no volume-based platform cost | Quote-based exact fee | Commercial research; confirm current matcher status before routing |
| PropForge | Flat monthly plus active-account component; provider states no revenue share | Quote / account-volume dependent | Research only in current PFV buyer guides |
| Tradaxi | Published subscription structure and 0% revenue-share positioning in prior PFV research | Public market evidence retained | Verification hold; not active routing |
| Execurve / PropScale | Monthly no-revenue-share positioning; public entry-price evidence retained | Public market evidence retained | Re-verification; not active routing |
Why buyers look for 0% revenue share
Revenue-linked software costs scale with the contractual revenue base. A fixed, tiered or usage-priced alternative behaves differently as sales increase. That can make forecasting easier, but only if the buyer also models capacity limits, overage, implementation and third-party services.
Four different models can all be “no revenue share”
Flat monthly licence
A predictable recurring fee can simplify budgeting. Propriotec publicly positions around flat monthly pricing with no setup, per-account or revenue-share charge, while the exact current monthly quote remains the procurement variable.
Review Propriotec pricing →Tiered SaaS
Published tiers make launch and growth scenarios easier to model, but capacity thresholds and overage still matter. FXPropTech is a useful current benchmark for this structure.
Review FXPropTech pricing →Fixed licence + setup
Asgard publicly describes a one-off implementation fee plus fixed recurring licence, 0% revenue share and no volume-based platform costs. Exact project pricing remains quote-led.
Review Asgard pricing →Base fee + account usage
A provider can charge 0% of revenue while still becoming more expensive as active-account volume rises. Model the account definition and peak-volume scenario before treating the model as fixed cost.
0% revenue share is not zero variable cost
Model trading-platform licences, market data, KYC checks, payment processing, payout rails, hosting, email/SMS, account overage, custom integrations, support and migration separately. Some are contracted directly with third parties rather than billed by the core software provider.
Use the prop firm software cost guide for total-cost modelling and the 500-trader benchmark to normalize unlike commercial models.
Do not confuse “no per-account fee” with unlimited capacity
A plan can have no incremental per-account charge while still imposing an active-account capacity or tier boundary. Ask what counts as an active account, what happens above the quoted capacity and whether the firm is automatically moved to another plan.
Research evidence vs active introductions
Tradaxi and Execurve remain useful historical/current-market pricing references in PFV research, but current buyer routing is held pending verification. That is deliberately different from deleting useful market evidence or presenting every researched company as an active recommendation.
For the current verification layer, use the provider directory. For requirements-based matching, use Get Matched; held providers are not supposed to become active introduction routes merely because they appear in research.
Questions to send every provider
- What is the exact implementation/setup fee for our scope?
- What is the minimum recurring commitment?
- Is any revenue, profit or transaction percentage charged?
- What account, trader, challenge or usage limits apply?
- What happens when those limits are exceeded?
- Which trading-platform and market-data costs sit outside the licence?
- Which KYC, payment and payout costs are pass-through?
- What minimum term and cancellation notice apply?
- What data-export and migration rights apply on exit?
- Which support/SLA commitments are contractual?
How to compare no-revenue-share offers
Normalize every quote to the same operating assumptions. Use at least a launch case, expected/base case and higher-volume case. Compare 12-month cost, not only month one, and document which services each provider includes before drawing a cost conclusion.
The Pricing Transparency Index shows which commercial components are actually visible before a sales call. The Pricing Hub connects those models to provider-specific research.
FAQ
Does 0% revenue share mean fixed total cost?
No. Usage, account capacity, trading infrastructure, KYC, payments, market data, hosting and integrations can still create variable costs.
Is flat monthly pricing cheaper than revenue share?
Not automatically. The result depends on revenue, volume, included scope and third-party costs. Compare identical operating scenarios.
Which providers can PFV introduce me to?
Matcher and introduction eligibility is maintained separately from research coverage. A provider appearing on this page is not by itself a promise that PFV will route buyer information to that provider.