Published methodology
Rankings compare trader terms, not payout history.
FirmFax assumes firms included in ranked comparison have paid traders. Payout information may still appear as research context, but payout context is not a scoring category.
Firms are separated by market: forex/CFD, exchange-traded futures, and crypto-native or crypto-supported products. Public rankings default to account-specific scores. Firm-level scores remain research context because rules can change materially between plans from the same company.
Fig. 01 — How a grade is built
Four weighted factors
Plan rules
One term the plan publishes: the drawdown model (static scores highest, then no drawdown, then end-of-day trailing, then trailing on closed balance, then intraday trailing). Where the plan says nothing, a statement the firm publishes for every account counts. Otherwise the term is unread and is scored low: the least lenient value the firm’s other plans on sale publish for it, or the lowest value it can score. The consistency rule and the daily loss limit are left out of this factor today because we have recorded them for 64% and 76% of plans on sale.
Firm track record
One input: the firm’s operating age, from its founding year, shared by every plan the firm sells. The curve starts at a floor and reaches full marks at six years, because surviving three years of this sector is evidence rather than a near-zero. A firm whose founding year we cannot source is not scored on this factor at all.
Plan transparency
How checkable the plan’s terms are: how many sources we cite for the firm and for the plan itself, how confident our reading of them is, and how many of those sources are the plan’s own. A cited page that answers only a bot wall earns nothing, because a reader cannot check it either. A source that cannot carry a claim about the firm earns nothing here, on the same test the citation gate applies.
Plan accessibility
How many platforms the plan supports. An unread term here is scored low, as an unread rule term is. The starting price and the activation fee are left out of this factor today because we have recorded them for 76% and 34% of plans on sale.
Each plan on sale is scored on these four factors, averaged by weight. Penalties come off that subtotal, and the result is clamped to 0-100 before it is lettered: A 85-100 · B 70-84 · C 55-69 · D 40-54 · F below 40 .
A term counts toward grades only while we have recorded it for at least 80% of the plans on sale. Recorded means a value, or the firm’s own statement that the plan has no such rule or fee. Below that line the term leaves every grade, for every plan alike, and it counts again once we have recorded it for 80% of plans on sale. The founding year counts while we have recorded it for at least 80% of firms with a plan on sale. Today 4 terms are left out: the consistency rule (recorded for 64% of plans on sale), the daily loss limit (recorded for 76% of plans on sale), the starting price (recorded for 76% of plans on sale) and the activation fee (recorded for 34% of plans on sale).
A firm’s score is the score of its middle plan on sale. We rank the firm’s plans on sale by score and take the one in the middle; with an even number, the lower of the two middle plans, so the score is always a real plan’s score and never a number no plan earns. Plans that are wound down or not yet on sale are left out, and a firm with no plan on sale is not graded.
Where the firm has a letter and that middle plan has the same letter on its own, the firm page names the plan and shows its breakdown. Where the middle plan’s own range still spans two letters, the firm keeps its letter but the page names no plan, because the plan could not be called that grade on its own.
The shares above are the model’s weights, 40, 15, 20 and 10 out of 85, printed as whole percentages that sum to 100.
That mapping is unchanged. A letter is published only where the range behind the score sits inside one band. The range widens for every input we have not read. Where it spans two bands, nothing is published in place of the letter: no score, no range and no letters. A firm or plan without a letter says “Not graded” and names what we have not yet read that would settle it.
A firm’s range is taken from its plans’ ranges: its low end is the middle of their low ends and its high end the middle of their high ends, so a firm is graded once enough of its plans are, and it is always graded when every plan on sale is.
A firm without a letter still has a place in a ranked list. That place is set by its plans, and no score is printed beside it. What changed and why.
Plan scores
Plan grades use plan-specific rules.
When a firm offers multiple routes, the plan table grades the route itself. For example, Topstep Standard, Topstep No Activation Fee, XFA Standard, and XFA Consistency are not the same product, so they should not inherit one flat score.
Plan rules, price, activation fee, platforms and sources are read from the plan; track record is the firm’s and is shared across its plans. Status penalties are the same as below and apply in full to every plan. The red-flag penalty stops at 15 points for a plan, as it does for the firm, because a firm’s score is one of its plans’ scores and a firm’s own concerns must cost it their full weight.
A plan grade is held to the same rule as the firm grade above it. Where the range behind a plan’s score spans more than one band, the plan says “Not graded” and names what would settle it.
A firm’s rules are read from its plans. For the drawdown model, consistency rule, daily loss limit and minimum trading days, the value shown for the firm is, in this order: the firm’s own statement that the term applies to every account; the plan the firm’s own pages mark as its flagship; the firm’s only plan on sale; the value every plan on sale shares, where a plan that says nothing does not count as agreeing; and otherwise “Varies by plan”, naming the plan whose term is strictest. A stored firm-wide figure no longer stands in for a plan that says nothing. Minimum trading days and the reset fee are not inputs to the score.
Some terms are shown only while we can show them for most plans. The reset fee, activation fee and news window appear on firm and comparison pages only while recorded for at least 80% of plans on sale; below that they are removed from every page rather than shown as “Not recorded” on most of them. The starting price, drawdown model, daily loss limit, consistency rule, profit target and minimum trading days always stay on the page, recorded or not. Today the reset fee and the activation fee are not shown.
Evidence tiers
Sources carry different weight.
These tiers are ordered by what a reader can check, not by how close the source sits to the firm. A trader can open a firm's own page. A trader can open a review site. Nobody outside FirmFax can open an email sent to FirmFax, so a firm's private communication ranks below both, however authoritative its origin.
Third-party ratings and reputation context help identify risk patterns, but they never override a public rule term.
Since 9 September 2026 a source is also classified by who published it, and the class decides what it can support. A page that is not the firm’s own domain, an archive of one of its pages, a documentation host it publishes on, a regulator record, its own company profile, or its own announcement account supports nothing, and a new citation to one fails our build. That gate decides whether a citation may appear at all. Which claim a source may stand behind is a rule we hold ourselves to and the build does not check it, because marking the source of one value rather than one firm is something this record cannot do. What each class supports.
Tier 1 - Official source
Firm help-center pages, legal terms, risk disclosures, program pages, and current rule documentation. Nearly every rule value published here traces to one of these. Sources are recorded per firm rather than per value, so where a value comes from something else, the record cannot mark that value individually.
Tier 2 - Third-party signal
Review-site reputation data, industry directories, and dated public complaint patterns. They inform the reputation band shown on firm pages, are not an input to any score, and never override a published rule term. A cited third-party page earns nothing under transparency either, because that factor counts only the sources that could carry a claim about the firm.
Tier 3 - Attributed communication
Something a firm told us directly, in an email or a document it sent us. It is dated and credited to the firm. It is the only tier a reader cannot open and check for themselves, which is why it sits last. No attributed claim is stored today and none has been published, so what follows describes the rules that would govern one, not a practice in use.
A Tier 3 value never moves a score. It does not count toward the rule factors, it does not count toward transparency, and it does not count toward the verified tag. A firm that could raise its own grade by sending us an email would not have an independent grade. This holds because an attributed claim is stored apart from the field it is about and the scoring model never reads it, so it is a property of how the site is built rather than a rule somebody has to remember to apply.
An attributed claim has three endings and only one of them is the one we want. If a page the firm publishes is later found stating the same thing, the claim is resolved: the value becomes an ordinary sourced value and the record shows when it was confirmed. That outcome beats the clock, so a claim confirmed after a year reads as resolved rather than as expired.
Otherwise it expires ninety days after the date the firm stated it, which is not the date we recorded it. A document written six weeks before it reached us expires six weeks sooner. An expired claim is not deleted: it stays where it was, marked and dated, so a reader can see what the firm said, that no page the firm publishes was ever found stating it, and when FirmFax stopped carrying it. A claim we cannot date is never carried at all, because the figure and the date are one sentence and there is no way to print the first without the second.
Penalties
How penalties work
Red flags reduce the score after the weighted subtotal is calculated, on a sliding scale: the first costs 5 points, each further one costs less, and the total stops at 15. Documenting a firm carefully must never be the thing that sinks it, so status carries the weight instead — a watch status costs 10 points, a flagged status 40, a plan that is wound down or not yet on sale is capped at 20 regardless of past performance, and a firm with no plan on sale is not graded.
One factor can drop out entirely. Track record needs a sourced founding year; without one, it is not scored, its weight moves to the factors that do have evidence, and the page names what was skipped. A missing founding year is a gap in our record, not a mark against the firm, and it must not read as a middling result.
This applies to every term that counts toward grades. A term left out under the 80% line is not scored low; it is not scored for any plan. Inside plan rules and plan accessibility, a term nobody has read no longer drops out. Letting it drop out meant the terms that were read carried the factor between them, so a firm we had researched less could score higher than the evidence warranted. An unread term is now scored low, never high. For a plan, it takes the least lenient value the firm’s other plans on sale publish for that term. Where none does, or where the term is a firm-level rule already read across the plans, it takes the lowest value that term can score. Its weight stays where it is. Because the score has used the low end, the range behind it opens to the term’s full span, and the letter rule above decides whether a letter can be published.
- Rules are missing, contradictory, or materially different by account type without clear labeling.
- Important restrictions are hidden in support articles, agreements, or onboarding flows.
- Recent rule changes materially increase account-failure risk or reduce trader flexibility.
- Complaint themes cluster around unclear enforcement, support lockouts, or sudden account restrictions.
Limits
What the score does not mean
A high score does not mean a firm is risk-free, a payout is guaranteed, or a trader will pass. It means the signals this model reads, listed above, are stronger.
Payout proof is treated as a profile note, not a rank input. If a firm stops paying or has a sourced operational issue, that becomes a status/red-flag question instead.
FirmFax labels serious concerns only when they are factual, attributed, and dated.
Every value above is read off a firm’s own pages, so a firm is better placed than we are to notice when we have one wrong. If a figure here does not match what your published pages say, send a correction with the page that shows it. Corrections change the data, and the score follows the data — the same log records the ones we checked and declined.
Confidence
What a verified tag means.
Every firm page carries a confidence tag. It describes the state of the evidence behind the record, not the quality of the firm — a partial tag says our work is unfinished, never that the firm is worse.
Right now no firm is tagged verified, and all 71 are partial. The tag feeds the transparency factor, so finishing the work on a firm can move its score.
Verified
No firm holds this tag at present. A firm is tagged only after its live pages have been read by hand against its record. Before that review, it must pass an automated check, in which recorded claims are matched against the copies FirmFax has saved of the firm’s own cited pages rather than a fresh read of the live site. It passes when none come back missing or contradicted, across at least eight confirmed claims, and the firm page shows no “Firm pages disagree” entry. Plans the firm no longer sells do not block it, and a plan with no saved copy of its own cited pages is checked against the firm’s saved pages instead. A claim the check can neither confirm nor rule out does not block it either. The check can pass a record for the wrong reason, so passing it makes a firm eligible for the review by hand, never tagged.
Partial
The record is sourced and usable, but at least one claim is still open — a value that no public page states, or one the firm documents somewhere we have not yet been able to read. The firm page lists what is outstanding.
Order of work
Why the firms that pay us are researched first.
Every rule figure in this dataset is a verdict. The evidence behind it, the firm’s own sentence and the page it sits on, was read once and then discarded, because the record had nowhere to keep it. Attaching that evidence to the values already held is the largest research job this dataset has had, and it is being done on the 25 firms that pay a commission before the other 46.
The reason is practical and it is not a good enough reason on its own. Those 25 are the firms there is a working contact route to, so a figure that turns out to be wrong can be put to the firm and settled. The same work also decides whether those firms will be asked to link to their own record, and that ask cannot be made while the record behind it is unevidenced.
Scores on those firms can rise as a result, and the other 46 will not move while it happens. The transparency factor counts how many of a firm’s own pages are cited, in bands, and counts how much of its rule history is on the record. Research raises both. The scoring model cannot read which firms pay us and never will, which is the guarantee made above and it still holds. It does not cover this: the model is blind to commission, and the order the work was scheduled in was not.
What the work keeps finding is not a wrong figure. It is a figure that is correct for one of a firm's account types and recorded as though it covered all of them: a daily loss limit that is one number on a firm's one-step product and another on its two-step, a first payout available after a week on one account and three weeks on another. Both figures are the firm's own. Publishing one of them as the firm's answer is a claim nobody checked wearing the clothes of one somebody did, and it is a defect on this side rather than the firm's. Correcting it usually makes a record less definite than it looks today, not more.
So it is stated here before the numbers move rather than after. The scores were recorded before the first change and are recorded again after the last, so the movement is measured rather than estimated. The remaining 46 are queued behind these, not excluded from the work.
One lever is deliberately switched off for the duration. A record’s confidence tag feeds the transparency factor directly, and it is the one input that is an assessment of our own diligence rather than a count of anything a reader can check. No firm’s confidence tag is raised as part of this work, on any firm, for any reason. Nor is the definition of transparency changed while transparency is what is being measured.
The count of evidenced figures this produces is validated before it is published. Every field name written beside a quote is resolved against the schema, and one that does not resolve is refused rather than written. A quote attached to a field that does not exist would raise that count while evidencing nothing, and a number a typo can inflate is not a number worth printing.
Research base
Current source set
61 documents · link check 2026-10-16
These are the rule documents behind the model. Where a cited page sits on the domain of a firm we hold a commercial arrangement with, that citation is routed through our tracked redirect and marked sponsored — the original address is on the link’s title. Full terms on the disclosure page.
Model changes
When this model changed
This section records changes to how FirmFax scores and how it reads a firm's terms, and nothing else. A change a firm makes to its own terms is published on the rule tape, and so is a value we recorded wrongly, marked as our record. An error someone outside FirmFax reported is published on the corrections page. A change to what this model is willing to assert, or to how our pages read the values we hold, is published here.
23 September 2026
A term we have recorded for too few plans leaves the grade until we have
A rule or fee term now counts toward grades only while we have recorded it for at least 80% of plans on sale, and the founding year only while we have recorded it for at least 80% of firms with a plan on sale. When this was introduced, 4 terms fell below that line and left every grade: the consistency rule (64%), the daily loss limit (76%), the starting price (74%) and the activation fee (29%). Each returns once it is recorded often enough. No firm changed its terms; every change here is in what we score.
This partly reverses the change of 17 September. An unread term widened the range behind a plan’s score until no letter could be published, so grades turned on what we had not read rather than on the plan’s terms. A term that counts is still scored low where it is unread. A term recorded for too few plans now leaves the grade for all plans alike, rather than scoring low on most of them.
Leaving a term out removes it for plans where we had recorded it too, and it removes the uncertainty an unread term added to the range behind a score. The terms that left were the ones most often scored low where we had not read them, so most scores rose: of 248 plans, 214 rose, 14 fell and 20 did not change. On its own, this change moved firms with a single grade from 27 to 61 of 71, and plans graded from 106 to 221 of 248. It raised 19 of the 27 firm letters published before it, lowered none and removed none: Lark Funding B to A, Earn2Trade C to A, Alpha Capital Group C to B, Apex Trader Funding C to B, Blue Guardian C to B, DayTraders C to B, E8 Futures C to B, E8 Markets C to B, Funded Futures Family C to B, Funded Futures Network C to B, FunderPro Futures C to B, FuturesElite C to B, Lucid Trading C to B, Sure Leverage Funding C to B, The Trading Pit Futures C to B, Tradeify C to B, 10FOUR D to C, Alpha Futures D to C and Goat Funded Futures D to C.
The reset fee and the activation fee, which are not scored, are no longer shown on firm and comparison pages while under the line.
Today a grade rests on the drawdown model, the number of platforms, the founding year and how checkable the plan’s terms are. The consistency rule, daily loss limit, starting price and activation fee count again once each is recorded for 80% of plans on sale.
23 September 2026
A firm's score is its middle plan's score, and review ratings leave every grade
Firm letters published rose from 11 to 26 of 71. Twenty-two firms gained a letter and seven lost one. Plan letters rose from 96 to 101 of 248: 22 plans gained a letter, 17 lost one and 3 changed letter.
A firm's grade used to be scored on firm-level factors read across all of its plans. Where its plans set different terms, the firm often could not be given one letter. It is now the score of its middle plan on sale, which the firm page names when that plan carries the same letter, so the grade can be checked against the plan's own breakdown.
A public trader-review rating is no longer an input to any grade, firm or plan. Its weight is removed from the model for every firm alike, not handed to other factors for some firms. The reputation band still shows on firm pages. Eight firms had waited on a rating no page we may publish could supply; none does now.
Where a firm or plan has no letter, the page no longer prints a range of scores or letters in its place. It says "Not graded" and names what would settle it.
A firm's own status issues now cost a plan the same 15-point maximum they cost the firm, because the firm's grade is a plan's score. This moved one plan: Traders4Traders' 1 Step Challenge.
Letters no longer published: Breakout, HyroTrader, Legends Trading, MyFundedFutures and TickTickTrader, whose middle plan's range spans two bands; FundingTicks and OANDA Prop Trader, which have no plan on sale that we have recorded. Earn2Trade moved from B to C.
On comparison pages the rules row now compares the two plans the firms' grades come from. Where a firm has no single grade, the row is not compared.
No firm's data changed. What changed is what a firm's grade is taken from.
Firms that gained a letter: 10FOUR, Alpha Capital Group, Alpha Futures, Apex Trader Funding, Blue Guardian, Blueberry Funded, DayTraders, E8 Futures, E8 Markets, FTMO, Funded Futures Family, Funded Futures Network, FundedNext Futures, FuturesElite, Goat Funded Futures, Leeloo Trading, Lucid Trading, Phidias Propfirm, The Trading Pit Futures, Tradeify, Traders Launch, UProfit.
17 September 2026
Rules and fees shown without a firm's own terms behind them
We changed 71 entries in the plan tables on 26 firm pages. Each showed an activation fee, reset fee, daily loss limit or consistency rule for one plan that the plan's own terms do not state. It came from what we held for the firm as a whole, either a figure or a finding that the firm has no such rule or fee, and the table showed it as the plan's. Some consistency entries had read "None" since these tables were first published: until 4 September because nothing was recorded for the plan, and after it because of the firm finding. The earliest fee and daily loss figures had shown since 12 August 2026. All but one had shown since 13 September, and that one for under an hour on 17 September.
In 27 of those entries the table showed "None" or "$0": 18 consistency rules, 8 activation fees and 1 daily loss limit. That told a reader the plan had no such rule or fee when no page we cite says so. They now read "Not recorded".
In 42 the table showed a figure the firm publishes, but not for that plan. It may apply. No page we cite says it does, so these also now read "Not recorded".
In 2 the table showed a daily loss limit the plan's own terms say it does not have: 4% on For Traders' Fast Futures and $1,000 on Funded Futures Network's Steady Evaluation. They now read "None".
The same plan terms also showed on our best-of guides, fee pages, the calculator, a markets page and elsewhere on the firm pages. Each of them is one of the 71 above, and they now read the same way. Where the calculator adds up a plan's costs and a fee is not recorded, the total now reads as at least the sum of the fees that are.
Comparison pages show one rule per firm, not per plan. There, 38 firms showed a single figure or finding we held for the firm that its plans on sale do not bear out: 59 rules in all. Of those, 58 now read "Varies by plan", or "Not recorded" where no plan states one. One was an activation fee shown as free. One was a consistency figure BluSky Trading publishes for only some of its stages and accounts, which we had withdrawn as its firm-wide rule on 13 September and which stayed on these pages until 17 September. Where a firm had been marked as the better of the two on such a row, the mark is gone. On UProfit the consistency figure shown was stricter than what either plan on sale states, and it now shows the figure both plans publish. On Audacity Capital's comparison pages the consistency rule read "None", and it now reads "Not recorded".
No firm's terms changed. What changed is that a plan, or a firm on a comparison page, now shows only what the firm's own terms state for it.
Firms with changed comparison pages: 10FOUR, Alpha Capital Group, Apex Trader Funding, Audacity Capital, Blue Guardian, Blue Guardian Futures, BluSky Trading, BrightFunded, City Traders Imperium, DayTraders, E8 Markets, Fintokei, For Traders, FTMO, FTUK, Funded Futures Family, Funded Futures Network, FundedNext CFDs, FundedNext Futures, FundedSeat, Funding Traders, FuturesElite, FXIFY, Goat Funded Trader, Hola Prime Futures, Lucid Trading, Maven Trading, Ment Funding, MyFundedFutures, PipFarm, Take Profit Trader, The Trading Pit Futures, The5ers, Top One Trader, Topstep, TradeDay, Tradeify, Traders Launch, UProfit.
Firms with changed plan tables: 10FOUR, Apex Trader Funding, Audacity Capital, Blue Guardian Futures, Blueberry Funded, Breakout, Bulenox, City Traders Imperium, Dominion Funding, Elite Trader Funding, For Traders, Funded Futures Network, FundedNext CFDs, FundedNext Futures, FundedSeat, FuturesElite, Leeloo Trading, MyFundedFutures, OneUp Trader, P1 Futures, PipFarm, Take Profit Trader, The Trading Pit Futures, Topstep, TradeDay, Tradeify.
17 September 2026
Firm rules are read from the plans, and an unread term no longer raises a score
Firm letters published fell from 47 to 9 of 71, and plan letters from 148 to 61 of 248. No firm gained a letter and no published letter changed: every change is a letter we no longer publish.
No firm’s data changed. What changed is where a firm-level rule comes from and what an unread term is worth. A single stored figure used to stand for a firm’s rules even where one of its plans said otherwise or said nothing. It now comes from the plans, in the order set out above, and an unread term is scored low and opens the range rather than dropping out.
Of the 62 firms without a letter, 34 would be settled by a page we can read, 20 do not share one set of terms across their plans in our record and are graded plan by plan, and 8 would be settled only by a source we may not publish.
A firm without a letter is not rated lower. Its score is a range, and where that range crosses a letter boundary we do not round it to either side.
Trailing drawdown measured on closed balance is now its own type, scored between end-of-day and intraday trailing. Commission is still not an input to any score, and US availability is shown on firm pages without being scored.
10 September 2026
A company profile can carry a corporate fact
A firm’s own company profile on a business network is now a citable source, in a class of its own: it supports standing corporate facts the firm states about itself, and never a trading rule. It is a new class rather than a wider reading of the announcement rule, because the two describe opposite artefacts. A post is dated by construction. A profile is a standing self-description a firm maintains, and it can change without the change being dated.
Only a company page counts, so an individual’s profile is not the firm speaking. One thing is knowingly given up: a post by the firm on that same network is refused, because the address of a post cannot be told from anyone else’s. That is a limit we accepted, not one we overlooked.
Building it exposed a fault that had never fired. One list was answering two questions at once, whether a source may stand behind a trading rule and whether it may appear in the record at all, so a regulator record cited for a corporate fact would have been rejected for being the very thing a regulator record is for. No such citation is stored, which is the only reason nobody had met it, and the first one would have. It is the shape of the entry below: a list doing work it was never asked to do.
10 September 2026
Transparency stopped counting sources that cannot carry a claim
The transparency factor measures how checkable a firm’s own terms are, and it was counting every cited source. 23 citations across 18 firms cannot carry a claim about the firm they are filed under, and each of them was earning under that factor anyway.
No firm’s data is wrong. Those sources are real, correctly recorded and correctly classified. What was wrong is the count taken over them. That is why this is published here rather than on the corrections page or the rule tape: an error in our own model gets no entry under a firm’s name precisely because no firm’s record is wrong.
The count now applies the same test as the citation rule above it, so one definition governs both what may be cited and what a citation earns.
Five firm scores moved and one grade fell from D to F. One firm crossed into the ungraded set, so a letter that was on its page yesterday is a range today, which is the rule above working on the first change to run against it. 26 plan scores moved and three plan grades crossed a band.
Two of those five scores went up. Weight a factor cannot support moves to the factors that can, as set out under penalties, so removing sources does not only ever subtract. The change before this one withdrew a value and scores rose; this one withdraws sources and scores mostly fall. What both have in common is a count doing work this model never asked of it.
9 September 2026
A source is classified by who published it
A citation now carries a class, and the class decides what kind of claim it can carry. The firm’s own domain, or a web archive of one of its pages, supports anything, including rules, prices and fees. A documentation host a firm writes its own knowledge base on supports rules. A regulator, register or court record supports corporate facts and nothing about trading rules. The firm’s own announcement account supports a dated announcement and never a standing rule. Anything else supports nothing.
A page that is not the firm’s cannot state the firm’s terms. At best it repeats them, at worst it repeats last year’s, and the September accuracy audit found a directory carrying a cookie window six months longer than the firm’s own page stated.
A new citation that supports nothing fails our build. Citations stored before the rule are listed rather than removed, and that list can only shrink: an entry leaves it when the citation is replaced, and nothing may be added to it by hand. Nothing already published was removed when this landed.
9 September 2026
No letter where the range spans more than one band
24 headline plans and 101 plan rows across 23 firms stopped carrying a letter grade and a score. The remaining 48 of the 71 tracked firms are unchanged.
No firm’s data changed and no value moved. Every input behind those plans is the input we held yesterday. What changed is what this model is willing to assert from them. Where the range a plan’s score rests on covers more than one letter band, the letter was never a fact we held, and publishing one stated a precision the inputs do not carry.
A firm that showed a letter yesterday shows a range today. Each affected page names that range and the facts that would close it, in place of the letter.
Seven of the 23 firms are opened by reading a page, most often the firm’s founding year or the entry price. For the other 16, every route to a grade runs through a public trader-review rating, and that rating is withheld. Those are two different states and this page keeps them apart: the first is work we have not done, the second is work that does not exist to do.