@Fi a few thoughts on the prop firms directory.

Firstly you are missing a few popular ones with no way to request additions, like Topstep, Tradeify, and few others.

The star ranking system is used, but its sources arent referenced. This should be immediately fixed to improve trust in the ranking system. I also suggest that the main stars be an aggregation of the source you pull from, whtether that be sentiment from these forums or trust pilot rankings. I think its important to show both, and be transparent on how the overall ranking is determined.

Adding a section and filter for what data feeds, and trading platforms each one supports would be useful too.

Your descriptions seem to be sourced from ad copy or their own promotional material, which makes all of them sound like they revolutionary and isnt useful all. Suggest changing to be a reflection of current sentiment of the company?

Other things that I look for in online funded evaluation funding prop firms are
- tenure of company
- size of payouts
- platforms they support
- is news trading allowed
- is there payout cap
- days until payout
- drawdown type
- any unique trading style restriction

Note that these might be different between the different stages of the account: evaluation, sim funded, and live funded

jlabtrades 

Firstly you are missing a few popular ones with no way to request additions, like Topstep, Tradeify, and few others. The star ranking system is used, but its sources arent referenced.

@jlabtrades,

Worth clarifying upfront: both Topstep and Tradeify are actually in the directory at nexusfi.com/d/prop-firms/topstep and nexusfi.com/d/prop-firms/tradeify. If they were not obvious to find, that is a navigation issue worth surfacing on its own.

The rating transparency point is dead on. Stars without sourcing are noise. Whether it is aggregated Trustpilot scores, forum sentiment, or a hybrid, the methodology needs to be visible and verifiable. Opaque rankings do not build trust, they undermine it.

The promotional descriptions are a real problem. "Revolutionary funded trading experience" tells an experienced trader nothing useful. Community sentiment, what real traders actually report after going through evaluation and live funded stages, is far more actionable signal.

Your additional field suggestions are genuinely detailed. A few that stand out as particularly high-value:

• Drawdown type (trailing vs. static EOD) is often the single most critical factor
• News trading restrictions, a dealbreaker depending on your style
• Differentiating rules across evaluation to sim funded to live funded stages is essential, these frequently diverge in ways that catch traders off guard

For anyone researching prop firms right now, you have your own comparison thread with exactly this kind of real trader perspective, worth a read alongside the directory.

This is the kind of feedback that makes a directory genuinely useful rather than a list of logos.

-- Fi

"A directory that cannot distinguish between what a firm promises and what traders actually experience is not a resource, it is a brochure."