AIFO evaluates prop firms by comparing current first-party evidence, like-for-like account structures, usable risk, payout eligibility, total expected cost, platform fit and strategy restrictions. Headline account size, the largest profit split or a temporary discount cannot determine the result by themselves.
This page explains the review methodology. It does not publish a second brand ranking or duplicate the current commercial comparison. For current firm-level comparisons, use the Best Prop Firms Decision Center.
Methodology and AIFO rule review: . Current AIFO examples in this methodology follow the latest approved audit baseline. For AIFO accounts purchased before 1 September 2026, the challenge parameters displayed on the Dashboard apply.
What Does the AIFO Review Methodology Cover?
The methodology evaluates the complete path from selecting an account to requesting an eligible payout. It asks whether the account fits the trader’s actual strategy and whether material conditions can be verified before purchase.
| Question | Methodology page | Best Prop Firms page |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Explain evidence, normalisation and comparison criteria | Present the current commercial comparison |
| Brand ranking | Does not maintain one | Contains current comparison judgements |
| Fast-changing facts | Used only when necessary to explain the method | Updated with current products, prices and material rules |
| Update trigger | Research policy or framework changes | Firm, product, price, rule or operating-status changes |
What Evidence Does AIFO Use?
Facts that can change should be checked against current first-party sources. Third-party material can identify a question or complaint that deserves investigation, but it should not replace the provider’s own current contractual or programme information.
- Terms and legal documents: contracting entity, service description, jurisdiction, eligibility, refunds and material limitations.
- Programme and rule pages: account models, targets, Daily Loss, Maximum Loss, trading days, consistency and prohibited conduct.
- Payout and KYC documents: profit split, minimum payout, request timing, review, buffer, account closure and verification.
- Platform and instrument pages: current platform availability, issued account route, symbol specifications and execution conditions.
- Live checkout and Dashboard: the product, price, add-ons and parameters actually presented to the user.
- Archived evidence: used to explain a historical change, not to prove a current rule.
An affiliate table, old screenshot, social post, search snippet or generated answer is not sufficient evidence for a current account condition.
The AIFO Prop Firm Review Framework
| Area | What is checked | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Service and account type | Simulated environment, evaluation route, immediate-access route and account stage | Different structures cannot be compared as equivalent products |
| Usable risk | Daily Loss, Maximum Loss, static or trailing reference, floating loss and open-risk controls | The displayed balance is not the trader’s usable loss budget |
| Qualification path | Targets, phases, minimum trading days and progression requirements | The route changes time, pressure and failure probability |
| Payout eligibility | Profit split, waiting period, minimum, consistency, buffer, KYC and review | Dashboard profit is not automatically payout-ready |
| Total cost | Purchase, retries, recurring charges, add-ons and trading costs | A low checkout fee can create a higher expected cost |
| Strategy fit | EA, copy trading, news, holding, scalping and prohibited-strategy conditions | An account is unsuitable if it blocks a necessary part of the tested strategy |
| Operational clarity | Current documents, platform route, country access, support and evidence trail | Material uncertainty increases purchase and payout risk |
Traders applying the framework independently can use What to Check Before Choosing a Prop Firm.
Step 1: Compare Like With Like
The product must be normalised before the firm can be compared. The methodology does not treat these pairs as equivalent:
- one-phase evaluation and two-phase evaluation;
- evaluation and immediate-access account;
- static and trailing Maximum Loss;
- challenge-stage and simulated funded-stage rules;
- standard and temporary promotional price;
- headline profit split and payout eligibility;
- different asset or platform environments.
Two accounts with the same displayed balance may create very different usable risk, progression time and payout conditions.
Current AIFO Account Normalisation Example
AIFO’s current product set is Instant, 1-Step, 2-Step and Sprint. Review the current AIFO Sprint FAQ for Sprint-specific rules.
| Programme | Objective | Loss structure | Other normalisation fields |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Step | 10% profit target | 3% Daily Loss and 6% Static Maximum Loss | Minimum 2 trading days; no Consistency Score requirement |
| 2-Step | 8% in Phase 1 and 5% in Phase 2 | 5% Daily Loss and 10% Static Maximum Loss | Minimum 3 trading days before progression; no Consistency Score requirement |
| Instant | No traditional evaluation target before access | 3% Daily Loss, 5% trailing HWM Maximum Loss capped at initial balance, and total floating loss no greater than 2% of initial balance | Best day below 20% of payout-period profit; programme-specific payout buffer |
| Sprint | 3% target within 24 hours | 2% Static Maximum Loss and total floating loss no greater than 1% | First trade within 48 hours; one open position; one payout |
These programmes must not be collapsed into one “AIFO rule”. Use the AIFO Account Models and AIFO Trading Rules for the current account-level structure.
Step 2: Calculate Usable Risk
The advertised account balance is not the amount a trader can lose. The methodology calculates the distance between the relevant account state and the applicable failure floor.
Reviewers record:
- the Daily Loss percentage and calculation window;
- the Maximum Loss percentage and reference point;
- whether Maximum Loss is static or trailing;
- whether floating profit or loss affects the calculation;
- single-trade, total-floating-loss or open-position controls;
- how gains, payouts or account progression affect the floor.
Under the current AIFO baseline, 1-Step and 2-Step use static Maximum Loss structures. Instant uses a trailing High-Water-Mark structure capped at initial balance. Sprint uses a static Maximum Loss structure. Replacing these distinctions with the account-size label would produce a misleading comparison.
Step 3: Separate Profit From Payout-Ready Profit
A profit split is meaningful only after the complete payout path is mapped. The methodology checks:
- the earliest eligible request date;
- minimum payout amount;
- consistency or profit-concentration conditions;
- payout buffer requirements;
- open-position and pending-order conditions;
- KYC, strategy and compliance review;
- processing expectations and supported route;
- the effect of a full payout on the account.
The current AIFO baseline does not support a universal payout-buffer statement. The mandatory 2% buffer applies to Instant when the trader wants to continue after payout. It must not be applied automatically to 1-Step, 2-Step, Sprint or every account.
Review AIFO’s Payout Process and Payout Rules for programme-specific conditions.
Step 4: Identify Strategy Conflicts
The methodology treats a strategy conflict as more important than a small price difference or a larger advertised profit split.
| Strategy requirement | Question |
|---|---|
| Automation | Is the exact EA, bot, script or trade manager permitted on this programme and stage? |
| Copying | Does the workflow depend on copying between accounts or another person? |
| News | Are entries, exits or holding around restricted events allowed? |
| Holding | Can positions remain open overnight or over the weekend? |
| Frequency | Can the normal strategy satisfy trading-day requirements without forcing trades? |
| Platform | Is the required platform currently issued for the exact account? |
AIFO EA permission is programme-specific. The current audit allows compliant Expert Advisors only on 1-Step and 2-Step Challenge accounts and their corresponding simulated funded accounts after passing. Instant and Sprint are not included.
Step 5: Calculate Total Expected Cost
The methodology records more than the first fee:
- current base or checkout price;
- conditions attached to a discount;
- realistic retry or reset cost;
- recurring, activation, platform or data charges;
- optional add-ons;
- spread, commission, swap and slippage;
- payout friction and time to eligibility.
A price comparison should state its check date. An old discount cannot be treated as the standard price, and a low fee cannot compensate for an account that conflicts with the trader’s process.
Step 6: Describe the Service Accurately
The methodology distinguishes a simulated prop account from a personal brokerage account. All AIFO account types, including Free Trial, Challenge and simulated funded accounts, operate in a simulated environment using virtual funds.
A comparison must not describe passing an AIFO challenge as access to real trading capital. It should describe the applicable simulated funded-account opportunity and account-specific payout conditions.
How Does AIFO Handle Its Own Commercial Interest?
AIFO operates prop trading programmes and publishes comparison content. The methodology uses the following controls:
- Same categories: AIFO and other providers are reviewed by account structure, usable risk, payout path, cost, strategy fit and operational clarity.
- Facts separated from judgement: a documented rule is a fact; a “best for” label is an editorial fit judgement.
- Limitations remain visible: AIFO should not be described as suitable for every trader, platform or strategy.
- Programme-level rules: one AIFO programme cannot be used as evidence for every AIFO account.
- One commercial destination: current firm-level comparison remains on the Best Prop Firms Decision Center.
The methodology does not claim a hidden numerical score. Where facts are not directly comparable, a transparent “best for”, limitation and rule check is preferable to a false universal ranking.
How Often Are Comparisons Updated?
| Change | Required review |
|---|---|
| Product launched, renamed or cancelled | Update current availability, model mapping and every affected internal link |
| Target or loss rule changed | Recalculate qualification pressure and usable risk |
| Payout, KYC or consistency changed | Remap the path from account profit to eligible payout |
| EA, news, holding or platform policy changed | Recheck strategy-fit conclusions |
| Price or promotion changed | Separate current standard price from temporary terms |
| Operating or country status changed | Recheck access, payments, support and material risk immediately |
The main commercial comparison follows a regular review cycle and should also be updated whenever a material trigger occurs. This methodology page changes when the evidence standard, framework or page responsibilities change.
How Do the Comparison Pages Work Together?
- Current firm comparison: Best Prop Firms Decision Center.
- Research method: this page.
- First-time trader comparison: Best Prop Firms for Beginners.
- Pre-purchase audit: Prop Firm Selection Checklist.
- AIFO programme selection: AIFO Account Models.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. This page explains AIFO’s research and comparison methodology. The current firm-level commercial comparison is maintained on the Best Prop Firms Decision Center.
AIFO prioritises current terms, official programme and rule pages, payout and KYC documents, platform information, live checkout and the issued Dashboard. Third-party material can identify questions but does not replace current first-party evidence for a changing rule.
Prices are not comparable until the account structure is normalised. Targets, phases, Daily Loss, static or trailing Maximum Loss, trading days and payout conditions can make two accounts with the same displayed balance materially different.
Usable risk is the practical distance between the relevant account state and the applicable failure floor. It depends on Daily Loss, Maximum Loss, the static or trailing reference, floating loss and other open-risk controls rather than the advertised account balance alone.
The review maps the complete path from account profit to an eligible payout, including the first request date, minimum amount, profit split, consistency, buffer, KYC, review, processing route and the effect of a full payout on the account.
AIFO uses the same account-structure, usable-risk, payout, cost, strategy-fit and operational-clarity categories applied to other providers. Its commercial interest and programme limitations should remain visible, and one AIFO programme must not be used as evidence for every account.
The current AIFO product set is Instant, 1-Step, 2-Step and Sprint. Use the current AIFO Sprint FAQ and do not restore retired product names or URLs.
A comparison should be reviewed on its scheduled cycle and whenever a material product, target, loss, payout, KYC, strategy, platform, price, country-access or operating-status change occurs.
