FundingCodes Editorial Policy

Sources come first, and they are dated

Firm facts — prices, rules, drawdown mechanics, payout terms, platforms — are read from the firm’s own public pages, help centre and legal documents. Each page states the date those sources were read, and most pages list the source pages they relied on.

A price is read from the page as it renders in a browser, not only from its raw code, because some firms load prices after the page opens. If a firm does not publish a figure, we say it is not published or not confirmed rather than estimating it.

Conflicting documents are shown, not resolved

Firms sometimes contradict themselves: a marketing page and a help-centre article describe different payout cycles, or a plan appears on one page and not another. When that happens we report both versions, name which document says which, and advise getting the answer from the firm in writing. We do not quietly pick the more flattering version.

Community evidence is attributed

Reviews include what traders say on Trustpilot, Reddit and X. Those are individual claims we cannot verify, and they are labelled that way and attributed to their source. Trustpilot scores and review counts are shown as third-party signals, with the date we read them; they change.

No FundingCodes scores or star ratings

We do not give firms our own star rating or score. Where a star figure appears, it is the firm’s public Trustpilot rating, labelled as such and linked to its source.

Codes are checkout-tested wherever the firm allows it

A code is described as checkout-tested only after it has been applied in the firm’s own checkout, and only for the configurations that were tested. Where a firm prevents us from completing that test, we identify the alternative source and do not describe the resulting prices as checkout-tested. The full method, including the Bulenox exception and how expired codes are handled, is on how we verify codes. Our reviews are kept separate from our discount-code pages: a review title never advertises a code.

Affiliate relationships and independence

FundingCodes earns commissions when readers buy through some of our links. Those links are marked as sponsored. A commercial relationship does not buy a conclusion: partner firms’ rule conflicts, payout complaints and weaker terms are published the same way as anyone else’s, and when a firm’s own public code is a better deal than the code issued to us, we publish the firm’s code. We also cover firms that pay us nothing — Apex Trader Funding appears in our comparisons with no affiliate link, and the page says FundingCodes earns nothing from it.

The sitewide affiliate disclosure is in the footer of every page.

Updates and corrections

Reviews show when they were published and when they were last updated; comparisons and discount-code pages show the date they were last checked. When a firm changes a price, rule or code, the page is revised and the date moves with it; figures that are replaced may stay on the page as dated history so readers can see what changed. When we find an error, we correct the page once we have confirmed the right figure against the firm’s own checkout and documents, which remain the authority.

Who writes and edits

Pages are researched and written by the FundingCodes team and edited by Brandon King. See about FundingCodes for what the site covers and how it is paid.

Not financial advice

Futures trading and prop firm evaluations involve substantial risk. Nothing on FundingCodes is financial advice or a promise of qualification, funding, payouts or profit. The provider’s current checkout, agreement and rules control; see our Terms and Conditions.