Original research · 2026-09-04
Trustpilot has withdrawn the review score of 23 of the 71 firms we track
We opened the public review profile of every prop firm FirmFax tracks, on one day. Nearly a third no longer show a score, and the notice Trustpilot leaves in its place does not say the same thing each time. The full sweep is published as a file.
Every profile read on 2026-09-04. The sample is the 71 firms FirmFax tracks, not the whole sector. Method, limitations and the raw dataset are at the foot of this page.
How these are counted: 23 and 71 are both counts of the firm records we track, not of companies. E8 Markets and E8 Futures are two records sharing one review profile, so the 23 records are 22 distinct companies. The same holds in the denominator — FundedNext's CFD and futures records share a profile too — so the 71 records are 69 profiles. No other pair in the sweep shares one. Both sides of the ratio are counted the same way, which is why the headline uses the record count.
Prop firms lean hard on review scores. The score is in the hero of the homepage, in the affiliate copy, in the ads. So it is worth knowing how many of them no longer have one.
We opened the public Trustpilot profile of every one of the 71 firms FirmFax tracks, on the same day, using the same method. 23 of them have no published score. The profiles are still live and still collecting reviews. Where the rating should sit, Trustpilot shows a notice saying the rating is unavailable because the company breached its guidelines.
Withheld is not deleted. Trustpilot still calculates a score behind that notice and declines to display it, so what these firms lack is a published score, not a score. Anyone repeating this as “these firms have no rating” has overstated it.
That is 32% of the firms we track, and it includes some of the largest and most heavily advertised names in the sector. It is a statement about our list of 71 firms on one day, not about every prop firm that exists.
One thing this does not establish. Trustpilot's most common notice says fake reviews were removed from a profile. It does not say who wrote or paid for them, and neither do we. A profile can be hit with fake reviews by a competitor, an affiliate, or a paid-review service the company never hired. What the notice supports is that the review record for that firm was found unreliable — nothing about who made it unreliable.
Fig. 01 — Why the score was withdrawn
Three different sanctions, not one
Trustpilot states a reason, and the reasons differ in what they say about a firm. The most common, covering 20 of the 23, says fake reviews were removed from the profile and names nobody as their author. The other two describe conduct Trustpilot attributes to the company itself.
Fake reviews removed
20Trustpilot says it removed a number of fake reviews from the profile. It is the most common reason by a wide margin. The notice does not say who wrote or paid for those reviews, so it is not a finding that the firm placed them.
Misleading use of Trustpilot content
2Trustpilot says the company is displaying Trustpilot content in a misleading way, which is about how the firm presents review data on its own marketing, not about the reviews themselves.
Pressuring reviewers
1Trustpilot says the company has been pressuring people to change or remove their negative reviews. It is the most serious of the three and the rarest.
Fig. 02 — The full list
Every firm with a withheld score
Read 2026-09-04
Read this before the list
A withheld score says nothing about the firm's trading terms. It is evidence about a review profile, not proof of how a firm treats its traders. The published rules, drawdown terms and payout conditions on each firm page remain the better guide, and a firm on this list can still be a reasonable place to trade.
It says nothing about who placed the reviews. The common notice records a removal, not an attribution. Nobody should read this page as firms being caught faking reviews, because that is not what the notices say.
| Firm | Reason given by Trustpilot | FirmFax profile |
|---|---|---|
| Alpha Capital Group Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Audacity Capital Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Blue Guardian Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Blueberry Funded Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| BrightFunded Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Crypto Fund Trader Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Dominion Funding Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Misleading use of Trustpilot content “This company is displaying Trustpilot content in a misleading way.” | Rules & score |
| E8 Futures Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| E8 Markets Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Finotive Funding Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| For Traders Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Funded Trading Plus Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Funding Traders Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| FuturesElite Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Pressuring reviewers “This company has been pressuring people to change or remove their negative reviews.” | Rules & score |
| Goat Funded Futures Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Goat Funded Trader Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Instant Funding Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Maven Trading Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Phidias Propfirm Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| PipFarm Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| The Trading Pit Futures Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| Top One Trader Profile read Sep 4, 2026 | Fake reviews removed “We've removed a number of fake reviews for this company.” | Rules & score |
| UProfit Profile read Sep 3, 2026 | Misleading use of Trustpilot content “This company is displaying Trustpilot content in a misleading way.” | Rules & score |
Quotes are the reason clause displayed on each profile, and each row carries the day we read it. All 23 were re-read on September 5, 2026 and all 23 were unchanged. A notice can be lifted at any time without telling us, so a firm that believes its row is out of date or wrong should write to corrections@firmfax.com. Every claim received is answered and logged in public at /corrections/, including the ones we decline.
FirmFax does not publish review scores or review counts anywhere on this site; firm pages carry our own rule-based score and a brand-neutral reputation band instead.
Fig. 03 — What we did not do
We did not invent a replacement score
A sanctioned profile still shows its star breakdown, so the tempting move is to average it and carry on as if nothing happened. We tried that first, and the sweep is what talked us out of it.
At least one firm in this dataset publishes a rating far below what its own star breakdown implies. A platform score is weighted by recency and adjusted for integrity; it is not the average of the bars drawn underneath it. Computing an average for the sanctioned firms while reading the real figure for everyone else would have put a third of the market on a quietly kinder scale.
So the reputation input stays empty for these firms. Their FirmFax score is calculated from the factors that do have evidence, the missing factor's weight moves to those, and the sanction itself is recorded as a flag on the firm page where you can see it.
Fig. 04 — A correction
Our first read of this was wrong
A spot check the day before this sweep found twelve of twelve profiles sanctioned, which looked like the whole sector collapsing at once.
It was not. Those twelve were exactly the firms whose stored rating in our dataset was already empty, so the sample was drawn from firms that had already failed to produce a score. Checking the ones that already look broken and concluding everything is broken is not a finding.
Reading all 71 put the real number at 23. It is a smaller claim than the biased sample suggested, and it is the one that survives checking.
Method
How this was measured
For each of the 71 firms tracked by FirmFax we opened the Trustpilot profile named by that firm's own website, and recorded whether a score was published or a withholding notice shown, along with the exact wording of that notice. No firm was skipped and no result was taken from a third-party summary. 1 firm has no profile at all.
Limitations worth stating, in order of how much they could change the number.
- One day, one read each. Profiles change, notices are lifted, and 13 of these rows were read a day earlier than the rest. A re-run next month will not necessarily produce 23.
- The pages were read as a visitor sees them. A notice rendered only for some regions, or shown after an interaction we did not perform, would be missed. We did not attempt to detect that.
- We count records, not companies. A firm running a CFD brand and a futures brand gets a row each, and two of those pairs point at a single review profile, so the 71 rows were read as 69 profiles and the 23 withheld rows belong to 22 companies. Deduplicating both sides leaves the share of the market almost unchanged.
- The sample is our list. 71 firms we track, chosen for coverage of the market we write about, not drawn at random from the sector.
The full sweep is published below: one row per firm, with the status and the verbatim notice where there is one. Scores, review counts and profile links are stripped from it, the same rule this site follows everywhere.