Payout Atlas compares proprietary trading firms on one question: what actually happens between passing an evaluation and having the money. It exists because that question is answered badly almost everywhere it is asked.
The problem this site was built for
Search for the fastest-paying prop firm and the results agree with each other suspiciously often. The same handful of firms appear at the top, the same round numbers get repeated, and the ordering rarely survives a look at the underlying terms. Two things drive that: most comparison pages rank on commission rather than criteria, and most of them copy their figures from each other rather than from the firms.
The result is a genre of page that reads authoritative and tells you very little. A trader who has just passed a challenge wants to know when they can request, how long approval takes, what is deducted, and whether anything is owed if the firm is late. Those four answers are usually absent.
What this site does differently
Three things, none of them complicated.
One axis, measured properly. Payout behaviour only. Platform quality, account sizes and pricing appear only where they change what reaches your account.
Primary sources or nothing. Every figure comes from the firm's own published material. Where a firm publishes nothing, the page says so rather than filling the gap.
Published weighting. The four measures behind the ranking and what each is worth are set out on the weighting page, so the result can be argued with rather than simply accepted.
How this site is funded
Through commissions on outbound links. Some of the firms listed pay a referral fee when a reader opens an account, and there is a direct commercial relationship with Meridian Funded, Tiger Funded and FXP. All outbound links to third-party firms carry rel="nofollow sponsored".
What that funding does not buy: position. No firm has paid for a placement, and none has seen its ranking before publication. The weighting page states the weighting in full and explains why Meridian Funded ranks where it does, using the same criteria applied to every other firm in the table.
This is stated here rather than in small print because a reader who knows how a page is funded can read it properly, and a reader who does not cannot.
What is checked, and what cannot be
Checked: what each firm publishes about processing windows, penalty clauses, eligibility dates, splits, cycles, refunds, minimum days, caps and deductions, read against the firm's own site and help centre.
Not checked: whether a firm honours those terms in practice, how often it refuses a request, how long its internal review takes, and whether the terms changed this morning. Nobody publishing a comparison page can verify those things, and pages that imply otherwise are worth less than they appear.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, it gets fixed. Write to the address in the footer with a link to the published page showing the correct position. Firms are welcome to submit changes to their own terms the same way; the only requirement is a public source, because a figure that cannot be pointed at cannot be published.
What this site is not
It is not financial advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to trade. Proprietary trading involves risk, most evaluation attempts fail, and evaluation fees are frequently lost. A firm ranking well on payout terms is a firm that has published good payout terms — it is not a prediction that you will reach a payout.
It is also not a review site in the ratings sense. There is no scoring of support quality, no aggregation of user complaints, no attempt to summarise sentiment. Those things matter; they are simply not what is measured here.