PropForge vs Asgard Group: Two No-Revenue-Share Prop Firm Stacks
PropForge and Asgard Group both market integrated prop-firm infrastructure without taking a percentage of operator revenue. The important difference is in how their fixed economics are structured and what buyers need to verify beyond the headline.
| Factor | PropForge | Asgard Group |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue share | None | 0% |
| Core pricing model | Flat monthly platform fee + small per-active-account fee | One-off implementation + fixed recurring license |
| Volume cost | Per-active-account component | No volume-based costs stated |
| Core stack | CRM, dashboard, challenge, payouts, KYC, fraud/risk | Checkout, challenge, risk, payouts, CRM, affiliates, trader area |
| Launch claim | 14 days | Two weeks |
| Data | Verify export/ownership contractually | Provider states operator data is exportable |
| Minimum term | Verify | Six months stated in public terms |
Provider-published information reviewed 1 September 2026. Claims about launch speed, usage and operating performance are not independently guaranteed.
Pricing: “flat” does not mean the same thing
PropForge states its model is a flat monthly platform fee plus a small per-active-account charge. That is still a no-revenue-share model, but cost grows with account volume. Asgard states a one-off implementation fee plus a fixed recurring license, with no revenue share and no volume-based costs. This distinction matters for high-account-volume businesses even if both providers advertise predictable economics.
Stack coverage
Both providers position themselves as alternatives to stitching together multiple operational tools. PropForge lists trader dashboards, challenge engine, payouts, KYC, fraud detection and risk management. Asgard lists checkout, challenge engine, risk, payouts, CRM, affiliates and trader area in one system of record.
Feature names alone are not enough. Buyers should demo the exact workflows they expect to run: challenge creation, breach handling, payout approval, account state transitions, KYC exceptions, affiliate reversals and failed payment reconciliation.
Contract and ownership
Asgard publishes unusually useful commercial context in its public terms: a separate written license agreement applies, the standard commercial structure uses implementation plus recurring license, and the minimum term is stated as six months before continuing until cancellation. It also states that trader records, payment history and performance data remain the operator's and are exportable.
For PropForge, buyers should request the equivalent details before signing: minimum term, cancellation, data export, migration support, per-active-account definition, overage mechanics and whether dedicated-server or infrastructure costs vary by scale.
Buyer fit
Account-linked scaling
Potential fit for buyers comfortable with a predictable platform fee plus an account-volume component and who want an integrated stack built around prop-firm operations.
Fixed-license emphasis
Potential fit for buyers prioritizing no volume-based platform cost, a disclosed minimum term and explicit data-export positioning.
Questions before choosing
- Request matched quotes for identical modules and integrations.
- Define “active account” and model PropForge's account component at scale.
- Confirm all third-party platform, KYC, PSP and data charges.
- Confirm data export format and migration assistance.
- Test risk and challenge rules using your real edge cases.
- Ask for contractual uptime, recovery and support commitments.
Verdict
Both are commercially interesting precisely because they avoid revenue share, but they should not be treated as identical flat-fee products. PropForge retains an account-linked variable component; Asgard publicly states no volume-based cost but requires project scoping and carries a stated six-month minimum term. The better choice depends on account growth, required modules, integrations and contract terms.