Different signs, the same inside. About “borrowed” prop firms
I opened a certain prop firm’s login page and found that it was connected to the same company’s setup as another firm. That company is FPFX Tech, a U.S. firm that rents out an entire prop-firm setup.
In this article, I call firms that run by borrowing their back-end setup from another company “borrowed” prop firms. You can check whether a firm is borrowed in three minutes, if you have a browser on a PC.
How to check in three minutes
You can check whether a firm is running on a borrowed setup with a PC browser alone. You do not need to create an account. It is hard to do on a phone, so please use a PC.
On the official site of the firm you are looking at, press “Log in.”
At the start of the login page’s URL, type
view-source:and press Enter.When a screen full of text appears, press Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on a Mac) and type
fpfx.If you find text that includes
fpfxtech.io, the firm is running on FPFX’s setup.
If you do not find it, at least the login page has no trace of FPFX. What you are doing is the same as simply opening the login page: you do not log in, and you do not enter personal information.
This method only tells you that the firm is “borrowing FPFX’s setup.” The screen does not show how much of the setup it is borrowing.
On November 10, 2026, I checked login pages using the steps above. Among prop firms that target Japan, I confirmed that two were running on FPFX’s setup. I am withholding the names, but anyone can check with the same steps.
Those two firms even had the same page layout and the same settings. I have not, however, been able to confirm which of the three ways of borrowing they use.
Looking at public domain records, I found about 60 dedicated endpoints that FPFX had prepared for individual firms (a partial view of what is available in the free tier).
Many firms besides the ones whose names you hear in Japan are running on the same setup.
Some firms run on a “borrowed setup”
To launch a prop firm, you need a lot of infrastructure: selling challenges, issuing trading accounts, monitoring rule breaches, identity checks, payout processing, and more. Building it in-house is said to cost $50,000–$150,000 and take several months.
That is why there are companies that rent out this whole setup. The firm itself only has to decide the brand name, the prices, and the rules, and then attract customers. It is close to a convenience-store franchise: the sign is different, but the setup inside is the same.
The leading names are FPFX Tech in the U.S. and its group company PropAccount. FPFX says it has launched 150 or more prop firms. PropAccount claims you can open for about $3,000 in as little as 7 days, and that it will even provide the funds for payouts.
There are three main ways to borrow the platform.
| How it is borrowed | Money left with the firm | Who covers the payouts |
|---|---|---|
| Borrow only the setup (direct contract with FPFX) | All of the revenue. The firm pays a usage fee from that (the amount is undisclosed) | The firm itself |
| Borrow the whole package — hands-off plan (PropAccount) | 30% of revenue | PropAccount |
| Borrow the whole package — custom plan (PropAccount) | 50% of what remains after payouts and other costs | Shared by the firm and PropAccount (the split is undisclosed) |
Being borrowed is not itself a bad thing, or a rare thing. However, the share that goes to the platform means that, over the long run, less is left than if the firm built the setup itself. And as far as I know, no firm using this setup can be called successful today.
If it is borrowed, how much does the firm have left?
Let’s calculate how much a firm on the “borrow the whole package — custom plan” keeps when one challenge with a $100 list price is sold. There are three assumptions.
Sold at a 20% coupon discount
Payouts are 64% of revenue (the published record of a firm called Propr, which discloses revenue and payouts)
Affiliate commissions are 15% of revenue
The remaining $2.4 has to cover advertising, support staff, and the cost of Japanese-language service. Under the same conditions, a firm that borrows only the setup would have $16.8 left (before paying the platform usage fee).
This calculation is for the “borrow the whole package — custom plan.”
A firm with thin remaining money will have to make up the difference somewhere. The changes that tend to appear at that point can be tracked from the outside. PROP CHECK records the following for each firm and also reflects them in the overall ranking.
| Changes that tend to appear | Where to look on PROP CHECK | How it affects the ranking |
|---|---|---|
| Payout conditions or caps become stricter partway through | “Rule change history” on each firm’s page | Unfavorable changes applied retroactively to accounts already purchased, or major changes with no notice, cost points |
| Rule-breach findings or account suspensions increase | The list of “Refusals & bans” reports, and patterns of complaints in reviews (such as rule disputes) | First-hand withdrawal and account reports become the “Payout eligibility” score, which makes up 50% of the overall score |
| Approved withdrawals are delayed or split | The scoring evidence on each firm’s page | Points are deducted when this can be confirmed in a firm email or an official announcement |
Repeating steep discounts over and over is also a move that tends to appear when remaining money is tight. If you see a firm that keeps discounting, it is safer to check first whether the three things above are happening.
These figures are hypothetical. If a firm’s payouts were only 30% of revenue, the remainder would rise to $16. Who pays the affiliate commission out of whose share has also not been disclosed, so this estimate assumes the firm pays it itself.
How I would approach this
I would not buy a challenge from a firm that runs on a borrowed setup and does not disclose the funds behind its payouts. Before the size of the discount or the height of the profit split, I check the firm’s operational foundation and finances, and how much of that it is willing to show.
Before buying, I look at the following three things.
Who covers the payouts. Is it the firm itself, or a platform company such as PropAccount? Depending on how the setup is borrowed, the party that is in trouble if payments stop will be different.
Whether it discloses revenue and payouts. If a firm publishes both for the same period, as Propr does, you can calculate from the outside how much it has left. If it does not, you cannot even do a calculation like the $2.4 example above.
Whether you can tell the company that operates the firm from the company that supports it. I look at who is operating it, and how far their responsibility goes.
In PROP CHECK’s scoring, items that cannot be confirmed in documents do not receive points under operational foundation.
On top of that, I read the “Rule change history” and the “Refusals & bans” cases on each firm’s page. Has the firm ever changed the rules retroactively on accounts already purchased? What reasons are people given when a withdrawal is refused? This is where you can follow how a firm moves when remaining money gets tight.
If you still want to buy
If you still really want to buy, be strict about “Don’t buy big, and don’t let profits sit.”
The steeper the discount, the thinner the firm’s remaining money. Before celebrating a cheap purchase, take a moment to ask whether the firm can really keep making payouts at that price. For my part, when a firm keeps running steep discounts, I also check whether the rules or payout conditions have changed.
It is hard to track rule changes and withdrawal troubles firm by firm on your own. I keep 30 firms together on PROP CHECK, and before I buy I always look at three things on each firm’s page: “Operational foundation,” “Rule change history,” and “Refusals & bans.” The ranking is recalculated every week and the order changes.
PROP CHECK includes referral links to some prop firms, and the operator may receive a commission if you sign up. Referral commissions are not included in the score calculation.