Landing page promises, agreement delivers: 8 programs where the numbers do not match
A prop firm’s affiliate page exists so that you sign up. The affiliate agreement exists to define how much you will be paid. These are two different documents with different jobs, and in this niche their numbers regularly diverge.
We went through 36 programs and checked what is written on the public pages against what is written in the agreement texts and help sections of the same firms. Eight programs turned out to have discrepancies that change the economics. Below is a review of each case.
The main rule worth fixing before you read on: legal force belongs to the document you sign, not to the page you came from. A screenshot of a landing page is not a contractual term. If a number matters for your economics, it has to be in the agreement.
Disclosure: propcases.com is owned by the prop firm Hash Hedge.
OneUp Trader: a discrepancy across four parameters at once
The most telling case, because it is not one number that diverges but the whole construction.
| Parameter | The landing page | Affiliate Partner Agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Rate | 25% | 20% |
| Recurring commission | Lifetime | First payment only |
| Attribution window | 60 days | 45 days |
| Payouts | Instant | About 30 days after month end |
| Threshold | Not emphasised | $250 |
Data from OneUp Trader’s own pages and from the agreement text, checked 2026-07-28.
Let us calculate the difference. An affiliate who planned income from the landing page assumed 25% on every purchase by a referral. In reality he will get 20% on one purchase. If the referral buys three times, the landing page model promised 0.75P, the agreement gives 0.20P. That is nearly a fourfold difference, and it has nothing to do with the quality of your traffic.
Look separately at the combination of the threshold and the term. A $250 minimum plus settlement about thirty days after the month closes means you will see the money from your first week of tests no earlier than two months later, and only if you reach the threshold. For a media buyer running on borrowed budget this is a risk factor in its own right.
Plutus Trade Base: three discrepancies, including an access tier
The second heavy case.
| Parameter | The landing page | The agreement |
|---|---|---|
| Rate | Up to 40% | Up to 35% |
| Attribution window | 365 days | 90 days |
| Recurring commission | Stated for everyone | Rank 4 only |
Data from Plutus Trade Base’s own pages and from the agreement text, checked 2026-07-28.
The third row matters more than the first two. Recurring commission in the agreement is tied to the fourth rank, and the fourth rank is 5000 referred clients (the firm’s own page, checked 2026-07-28). For the overwhelming majority of affiliates this means there is no recurring commission at all, while on the landing page it is presented as a property of the program.
As we showed in the piece on why the commission rate is not the main thing, recurring commission usually weighs more than the rate. Here the landing page promises both a higher rate and recurring commission, and the agreement removes both positions.
The window also deserves a separate look: 365 days and 90 days are different products from the standpoint of planning content traffic. A yearly window lets you work with articles that collect organic traffic over months. A quarterly window sharply shortens the payback horizon for SEO.
Crypto Fund Trader: the whole tier grid shifted
The landing page shows three tiers at 12/15/18%. The agreement gives 10/12/15% (the firm’s own page and the agreement text, checked 2026-07-28).
The discrepancy on each tier is 2-3 percentage points, that is, from 17 to 20 percent relative to what was promised. Additional context: Crypto Fund Trader does not pay on repeat purchases and states a 60 day window (the firm’s own page, checked 2026-07-28). There is no payout threshold, which is a plus for this program.
FundedNext: three own sources, three ceilings
Here the discrepancy is not between the landing page and the agreement but between different materials from the firm itself: three of FundedNext’s own sources give three different values for the maximum rate (the firm’s own pages and materials, checked 2026-07-28). In our summaries we use the value of up to 18% as the most conservative of the confirmed ones.
When a firm cannot agree on a number across its own publications, the question is not which of the three is correct. The question is which one will be applied to your calculation, and the only thing that answers it is the text you have signed.
Other FundedNext terms: a 90 day window, a $100 threshold, a ban on bidding on branded keywords in paid search (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28).
Goat Funded Trader: three mismatching tier schemes
A similar situation: Goat Funded Trader was found to have three mismatching tier schemes in its own materials (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28). The stated ceiling is up to 20%.
In addition: Goat Funded Trader bans paid advertising entirely (the firm’s own page, checked 2026-07-28). If you work with paid search or paid social, the program is closed to you regardless of which of the three schemes turns out to be in force.
Blueberry Funded: four tiers on the landing page, five in the help section
The landing page shows four tiers, the help section shows five (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28).
A difference in the number of tiers changes the thresholds for moving between them, and therefore your actual rate at a given volume. Blueberry’s other terms: up to 20% on the first sale, 10% on repeats, a 365 day window, a $200 threshold (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28). The yearly window here is one of the best in the niche, and that makes clarifying the tier grid practically significant rather than a formality.
FXIFY: three tiers on the landing page, four in the FAQ
The landing page describes three tiers, the same firm’s FAQ describes four (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28). The stated ceiling is up to 20%, the payout threshold is $50, bidding on branded keywords in paid search is banned.
On top of that there is a contradiction on recurring commission: different FXIFY materials give mismatching answers to the question of whether repeat purchases are paid (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28). Two inconsistencies in one program are sufficient grounds to request written confirmation of both positions before launch.
TradeDay: an uncleaned vendor template
A separate type of case. TradeDay’s main materials state up to 22.5% and a 365 day window (the firm’s own pages, checked 2026-07-28). At the same time the firm’s own affiliate portal on the Post Affiliate Pro platform shows 30% and allows PPC (the firm’s own portal, checked 2026-07-28).
By all indications this is an uncleaned default template from the affiliate software vendor rather than the terms in force. But formally it is a page of the firm, available to the affiliate after registration, and an affiliate can rely on it in good faith. The practical conclusion: if the terms on the portal are better than in the main materials, do not treat it as luck. Treat it as a reason to get confirmation.
What to do about it
A sequence of actions that takes half an hour and saves a month of work.
Download the text of the affiliate agreement before you register. At some firms it is publicly available, at others it opens only after you apply. If the agreement cannot be seen before signing, that in itself is information about the program.
Check six points: the rate, the calculation base, recurring commission and the rate on repeats, the attribution window, the threshold and payment term, the permitted traffic sources. These are exactly the six parameters that diverged in the cases reviewed.
Record the discrepancies in writing. Email correspondence with the affiliate manager is better than a chat in a messenger, and much better than a screenshot of the landing page. If the manager confirms the landing page terms, ask for confirmation in a letter stating that it takes priority over the agreement text.
Build your forecast from the agreement, not from the landing page. If the economics only work on the landing page numbers, the economics do not work.
Check the attribution window separately: in two of the eight programs reviewed it was the parameter that diverged the most, and it is the parameter least visible in reports. How to calculate the losses from a short window is in the piece on the attribution window. And before you apply, look at whether you will pass the filter at the entrance at all: where you will not be accepted.
