PropLabel vs FXPropTech
A side-by-side view of the commercial information we can currently verify from the providers’ own public material. Where a field is not publicly confirmed, we mark it as undisclosed instead of estimating.
| Factor | PropLabel | FXPropTech |
|---|---|---|
| Public setup price | €3,900 standard; €5,900 priority onboarding | Not publicly verified in our dataset |
| Ongoing commercial model | Starts at 10% revenue share or €1,000 minimum; provider states it scales toward 5% | Not publicly verified in our dataset |
| Verified platform support | MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker, DXtrade | Not publicly verified in our dataset |
| Public affiliate program | Yes | Yes |
| Affiliate commission | 20% lifetime revenue share on invoices from referred clients | 10% Startup, 15% Growup, 20% Scaleup on setup fee and recurring monthly payments for active referred clients |
| Affiliate payout frequency | Monthly | Monthly |
Which pricing model is easier to evaluate?
PropLabel currently exposes enough public commercial information to model a first-year technology cost directly. For FXPropTech, the public affiliate page confirms referral economics, but our verified dataset does not yet contain equivalent buyer-side pricing. That makes a like-for-like total-cost comparison premature.
What should a buyer ask both providers?
Request the complete onboarding fee, monthly minimums, revenue-share definition, per-account costs, mandatory add-ons, platform charges, market-data costs, payment integrations, KYC costs, support scope and termination terms. Then model the same low, base and growth scenarios across both proposals.
Use cost, not commission, to rank vendors
Prop Firm Vendors does not rank technology providers based on affiliate payout. Commercial suitability, evidence quality, integrations, operating model and total cost matter more than referral economics.