WORTH / KNOWING
Worth Knowing rankings

Clarity you can compare.

Our rankings measure how clear, accessible, and beginner-friendly a firm’s publicly documented program is. They do not predict profits, payouts, or trading success.

Read this firstA higher score means easier public research for the stated use case—not lower trading risk or a universal recommendation.
Current research snapshot

The Worth Knowing Fit Score

Checked September 27, 2026
01
V

Vanta Trading

Broad markets and a detailed rulebook make it easy to compare, while Pro promotion remains discretionary.

View score details +
88/100 · A
Rule clarity24/25
Risk-rule simplicity17/20
Payout clarity13/15
Fee accessibility13/15
Market access10/10
Beginner fit / practice support7/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Vanta Trading review →
02
V

Vest Markets

Fixed drawdown and a free paper-trading path are beginner-friendly, but funded-account terms should be checked closely.

View score details +
84/100 · B+
Rule clarity22/25
Risk-rule simplicity17/20
Payout clarity12/15
Fee accessibility12/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support8/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Vest Markets review →
03

Propr

Strong public rule and transparency material, with equity-based limits and payout details that need careful reading.

View score details +
82/100 · B+
Rule clarity24/25
Risk-rule simplicity16/20
Payout clarity12/15
Fee accessibility12/15
Market access8/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Propr review →
04

CarrotFunding

Pricing and on-chain documentation are clear, but the trailing maximum-loss model and best-day rule need attention.

View score details +
81/100 · B+
Rule clarity22/25
Risk-rule simplicity13/20
Payout clarity13/15
Fee accessibility14/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full CarrotFunding review →
05

DojiFunded

The live rulebook is unusually detailed, but HWM-based equity limits, venue execution, and add-on pricing deserve careful reading.

View score details +
80/100 · B+
Rule clarity23/25
Risk-rule simplicity14/20
Payout clarity12/15
Fee accessibility12/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full DojiFunded review →
06
H

Hypernova

Several clear risk tiers are available, but permanent equity breaches and differing payout claims deserve attention.

View score details +
79/100 · B
Rule clarity20/25
Risk-rule simplicity16/20
Payout clarity12/15
Fee accessibility12/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Hypernova review →
07
B

Breakout

Public rules are detailed and payout terms are clear, but live plan pricing should be confirmed before purchase.

View score details +
78/100 · B
Rule clarity23/25
Risk-rule simplicity16/20
Payout clarity13/15
Fee accessibility8/15
Market access8/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Breakout review →
08
M

MyFundedPerps

The documentation is detailed, but the live fee matrix and market-specific leverage require extra verification.

View score details +
75/100 · B
Rule clarity23/25
Risk-rule simplicity14/20
Payout clarity11/15
Fee accessibility8/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support6/10
Research confidence4/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full MyFundedPerps review →
09

Foxify Props

The instant-funding model and public level tables are clear, but automated strategy dependence, borrow fees, and reset mechanics add complexity.

View score details +
73/100 · C+
Rule clarity21/25
Risk-rule simplicity12/20
Payout clarity13/15
Fee accessibility10/15
Market access9/10
Beginner fit / practice support5/10
Research confidence3/5
Want the rules, fees, and caveats?Open the full Foxify Props review →
How the score works

Seven signals. One transparent number.

We score the public information available to a beginner at the time of review. The inputs are editorial judgments based on documented rules, not a claim about future performance.

01Rule clarity25 pts
02Risk-rule simplicity20 pts
03Payout clarity15 pts
04Fee accessibility15 pts
05Market access10 pts
06Beginner fit / practice support10 pts
07Research confidence5 pts
How to read the tiers
85–100Strong fit

Public information is unusually clear for the stated use case.

75–84Worth a look

Useful public information exists, with details that still deserve checking.

60–74Read carefully

Important gaps, complexity, or conflicting information remain.

0–59Limited public clarity

There is not enough reliable public information for a confident comparison.

Compare the programs →Read the methodology →