Onboarding speed and slippage consistency across different prop firm models
Been thinking a lot lately about the practical differences in how various prop firms operate, specifically regarding their backend infrastructure. It's one thing to see the advertised payout percentages, but what I'm more interested in is the real-world experience, particularly around onboarding efficiency and trade execution quality once funded. Some firms seem to have a smoother KYC/AML process and quicker account provisioning, while others can drag on, which eats into valuable trading time. More critically, I'm trying to gauge whether there's a discernible difference in slippage and fill rates for larger position sizes ($SPX, $NDX) between firms using their own proprietary platforms versus those leveraging established retail broker feeds. My assumption is that dedicated liquidity providers might offer tighter spreads and better fills, but I'm curious if anyone has practical experience comparing this across different prop models – especially for those times when volatility spikes. Are certain setups inherently more prone to adverse fills or wider spreads during significant market moves, or is it more about the specific tech stack of each individual firm?
The onboarding process can definitely vary, but I'm more concerned with the actual trading conditions post-funding. Slippage consistency is often overlooked until you're in the thick of it, and that's where the real costs can add up, regardless of how fast they got you through KYC.