RISK

Trading carries substantial risk of loss. Prop evaluation fees are typically non-refundable and the majority of traders do not pass first attempts. This comparison is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Read full risk warning

HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON · 2026

Quadeye vs SCALP Trade

Side-by-side comparison of trust scores, profit splits, payout speed, and real trader reviews. Independent data — no sponsored rankings.

QDEY

Quadeye

SCLT

SCALP Trade

EST. 2009

QUADEYE

METRIC

SCALP TRADE

0/100TIE

TRUST SCORE

TIE0/100

0/5TIE

RATING

TIE0/5

—

PROFIT SPLIT

—

MAX FUNDING

—

MIN COST

—

PAYOUT DAYS

—

PASS RATE

—

0TIE

REVIEW COUNT

TIE0

QUADEYE DETAILS

STEPS: -phase

SCALP TRADE DETAILS

STEPS: -phase
MARKETS: Stocks

Quadeye PROS

+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate
+Placeholder pro — no data provided beyond country; no metrics to evaluate

Quadeye CONS

−No trading metrics were provided, preventing any comparison to industry averages
−India-based prop firms may face additional regulatory complexity for international traders
−Absence of data on profit split, funding, drawdown, or payouts limits trader confidence

SCALP Trade PROS

+Offers Stocks trading, a relatively uncommon market among prop firms providing niche opportunity
+Founded in 2009, giving it over 15 years of operational history and longevity
+Placeholder pro — limited data prevents further above-average metric identification
+Placeholder pro — limited data prevents further above-average metric identification

SCALP Trade CONS

−No profit split, funding cap, drawdown, or payout data is available for comparison
−Absence of key metrics makes it impossible to evaluate this firm against industry averages
−Limited data is itself a transparency concern for traders making financial decisions

PROPDNA VERDICT