Enigma Score Methodology

What the Enigma Score measures

The Enigma Score is a 0–100 rating of a proprietary trading firm's overall quality and fairness to traders. It is computed from 10 independently scored pillars, each weighted by how much it affects a funded trader's real outcomes. The weights sum to 100.

The 10 pillars and their weights

Data-confidence adjustment

A pillar that has little verified data should not get a flattering middle score. After the weighted average is taken, the result is multiplied by a confidence factor of 0.85 + 0.15 × confidence, where confidence (0–1) reflects how much real, sourced data backed the pillars. A fully-evidenced firm keeps its score; a sparsely-documented one is pulled toward the conservative end. Pillars with no real factors are surfaced explicitly as “Insufficient data” rather than silently scored 50.

Score tiers

The Enigma Rating (per plan, 0–10)

Next to the firm-level Enigma Score, every priced plan carries its own discount-aware Enigma Rating. It is built from five sub-scores, each 0–100, blended with the weights below; a firm's headline rating follows its best-rated plan (the one carrying the “Best” badge) plus trader sentiment, so the number answers “what is the best deal this firm sells?”.

First-payout model

Value Index and Payout Reach come from one model of the path to a first withdrawal. The reference profit is the plan's own evaluation target (for instant-funded plans, the profit buffer the firm requires, else 5% of the account) — i.e. “repeat your evaluation result once”. The net first payout is that profit after any per-payout cap and the profit split; Value Index is that amount per dollar of all-in cost. All-in cost is the discounted price plus activation and data fees — and for plans sold as a monthly subscription (Topstep, Apex, TakeProfitTrader, Earn2Trade, Blueberry, Bulenox Qualification/Momentum, any plan marked “monthly”) the subscription is counted for 1.5 months, the typical time to pass, so a $150/month account is costed at $225 rather than one payment. Days to a first payout = eval days (the minimum days, stretched by a consistency rule — 50% forces two days, 30% four — times the number of phases) plus funded days (the payout cadence, a funded consistency rule, or the days needed to build the profit buffer at the same daily rate as the evaluation, whichever is longest). Payout Reach is 45% that day count, 25% price relative to account size and 30% the withdrawal ceiling: the most you can take out per month before the firm moves you to live capital — the payout cap × payouts per month × the number of funded accounts the firm allows (TakeProfitTrader: no cap, 5 accounts; BluSky: $3,000 a week × 3 accounts; Lucid: $15,000 of sim profit per account before live). A stated “no cap” scores 100; $5,000 a month scores 0 and $150,000+ scores 100 on a log scale. Forex/CFD profit-split payouts are treated as uncapped (the industry norm) unless the firm states a cap; a futures plan whose cap we have not captured yet is scored neutral and never rewarded for the gap. Both figures are shown on every plan.

Trader Sentiment and review text

Trader Sentiment blends the firm's lifetime Trustpilot score, its on-site rating and the average of its most recent ~60 Trustpilot reviews (equal weights, so a firm whose recent reviews are trending down is scored on that trend). The lifetime score is shrunk toward the industry average (4.0) in proportion to how few reviews back it — a 4.9 from 80 reviews counts as roughly 4.2, a 4.7 from 10,000 keeps its 4.7 — and a track-record bonus of up to 8 points rewards review volume (log scale to 10,000+) and years in operation, so an established firm with tens of thousands of reviews outranks a newcomer with a handful of perfect ones. The text of those reviews is classified into themes — fast payouts, payout problems, clear rules, rule changes, helpful or poor support, platform issues, account blocks, scam accusations, value — and the themes that recur are shown as “praised” and “complaints”; each recurring complaint theme and a Trustpilot consumer alert trim the score. Signals are refreshed weekly.

Your trading (personalised ratings)

The published ratings assume the default trader: passes first time, keeps the first funded account, and trades at a 75% win rate with 1:1 reward-to-risk. The “Your trading” control on the home page, firm pages and the compare page lets you change those four numbers. Extra evaluation attempts add the (discounted) evaluation price and its days again; an extra funded account repeats the whole path including activation; a lower expectancy (win rate × R:R minus loss rate) stretches the days needed to bank the target and the buffer, capped at 4× the default pace. Your model is stored only in your browser and never changes the published numbers.

One yardstick per market — and trailing drawdowns count for less

Value Index and Risk Cushion are ratios (net first payout per dollar, usable loss buffer per dollar) and every plan is judged against the median of all plans in its market. The market is read per plan (a plan named “Futures …” is a futures plan even at a forex house), and a firm's headline rating uses only its primary market — futures if it sells any futures plan, otherwise forex, otherwise options, otherwise perps. The median plan of a market scores 70; twice the median scores about 88. Options prop firms are a new market for us: until we track enough options plans to form a peer group of their own, options plans are judged against the all-plan reference ($9.69 of first payout and $9.4 of loss buffer per $1). Perps (perpetual-futures) prop firms are newer still and are judged the same way: every plan of a perps firm is a perps plan, scored against the all-plan reference ($9.69 of first payout and $9.4 of loss buffer per $1) until perps has a peer group of its own.

Drawdown mechanics are priced in three ways, so a trailing-drawdown plan cannot out-rank a static or end-of-day plan on a low price alone. Risk Cushion counts only the usable buffer: a static drawdown in full, an end-of-day trailing drawdown at 85% (it ratchets up with closed profits), an intraday / equity trailing drawdown at 60% (it ratchets on open profit too). Pass Ease scores the eval and funded mechanics (static > locking trailing > end-of-day > intraday). And a plan whose evaluation drawdown trails intraday has its blended rating scaled by 0.85 — the explicit ordering static ≥ end-of-day > trailing. Reference medians (recomputed from every live plan, usable buffer applied; the per-type rows are shown for context only):

• futures · all plans: $9.8 of first payout and $9.6 of loss buffer per $1
• futures · End-of-day: $9.42 of first payout and $9.6 of loss buffer per $1
• futures · Intraday trailing: $16.67 of first payout and $10.2 of loss buffer per $1
• futures · Static: $6.67 of first payout and $6.7 of loss buffer per $1
• forex · all plans: $9.69 of first payout and $8.7 of loss buffer per $1
• forex · End-of-day: $4.77 of first payout and $7.1 of loss buffer per $1
• forex · Intraday trailing: $6.63 of first payout and $5 of loss buffer per $1
• forex · Static: $10.85 of first payout and $16.3 of loss buffer per $1

Pass Ease, plan by plan

Pass Ease is computed from the plan's own rules, not the firm's generic ones, so two configurations of the same plan score differently when their rules differ. The parts and their weights: evaluation drawdown mechanics (20 — static best, end-of-day next, intraday trailing hardest), funded drawdown mechanics (15 — static best; a trailing drawdown that locks once it reaches the start balance, as at TakeProfitTrader PRO, BluSky Orbit, E8 or Lucid, counts almost as static; end-of-day trailing next; intraday trailing hardest), loss buffer relative to the profit target (20), daily loss limit (10), consistency rule in the evaluation (15) and once funded (10), minimum trading days (10) and number of evaluation phases (5). Parts with no verified value are left out and the rest are re-weighted; a plan with no rule data of its own falls back to the firm-level rules. Every plan lists the exact reasons (“50% consistency rule in eval”, “No daily loss limit”) so the score is never a black box.

Prices and codes

Every price on the site is the price after the best code we can verify: our own partner code where the firm has issued one (default FE), otherwise the firm's current public promotion. Discounts are never capped — a genuine 90% sale is scored as a 90% sale — because the price a trader actually pays is the price that matters. Promotions carry an end date where the firm publishes one and are updated daily.

Sources and refresh cadence

Firm data is collected original-source-first: the firm's official website is the primary source for pricing, rules and payouts; Trustpilot supplies the aggregate rating and review count; and PropScore.co is used as a fallback only for firms whose official sites cannot be reliably read. Every field carries source lineage. The full data cascade runs once daily at 11:30 UTC, so pricing, discounts and the score stay current within 24 hours.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure

FundedEnigma earns an affiliate commission when a trader signs up with a firm using the code FE. That relationship funds the site, but it does not feed the Enigma Score: the scoring engine reads only verified firm data (cost, payout reliability, drawdown fairness, rules, trust, reviews) and never an affiliate payout rate. The FE code delivers the firm's own currently-running public discount — we do not mark prices up. Rankings are not sold; a firm cannot pay to raise its score or position.

Questions about the methodology? Contact support@fundedenigma.com.