Independent Tech Provider Data & Comparisons
Kenmore Design vs Propriotec
Every figure below is computed from the same normalised dataset, so the two vendors are measured on identical terms — including the ones they would rather you compared on a call.
Kenmore Design vs Propriotec — the short answer
Kenmore Design and Propriotec compared on deployment, integrations, risk tooling, SLA, security and contract terms. Propriotec quotes the faster route to live at ~11 days. Kenmore Design names 20 integrations against 15 for Propriotec. Across 12 directly comparable measures, Kenmore Design leads on 5, Propriotec on 1 and 6 are tied; a further 19 rows carry no winner, either because the better answer depends on the firm you are running or because one side publishes nothing.
41/100 · Mostly sales-led
How much Kenmore Design publishes — not how good it is
33/100 · Mostly sales-led
How much Propriotec publishes — not how good it is
5
Measures where Kenmore Design leads
1
Measures where Propriotec leads
6
Measures where they are level
19
Rows with no winner
Where Kenmore Design wins
5- Risk engine capabilities7 capabilities
- Named integrations20
- Of those, shipped natively7
- Security practices published5 practices
- Years in market19
Where Propriotec wins
1- Time to go live~11 days
Side by side
32A value in green is more favourable to the buying firm on a measure with a defensible direction — a lower cost, a shorter lock-in, a published figure where the other side publishes none. Rows where the better choice depends on how you intend to run the firm, such as deployment model or hosting region, are left plain.
Cost
Publishes a price at all
A vendor that will not quote a number in public cannot be shortlisted on cost, only on a call.
Quote only
Quote only
Costs the headline price excludes
Data feeds, liquidity, premium support tiers — the parts of the bill that arrive later.
Trading platform licence — the firm supplies its own, PSP integrations beyond the two included, Automated KYC charged per verification by the third-party provider, Custom development beyond five free hours per month +3 more
Not published
Product
Services offered
CRM, Back office, Risk engine, Payments, KYC +2 more
Risk engine, CRM, Payments, KYC, Analytics +1 more
Module categories covered
How much of the stack one contract covers. Fewer categories is not worse — a focused risk engine may beat a suite.
CRM, Risk Engine, Payments, Affiliate, Other +2 more
CRM, Risk Engine, Trading Platform
Risk engine capabilities
7 capabilities
5 capabilities
Drawdown types it can enforce
Static, Trailing
Trailing
Back-office capabilities
5 capabilities
5 capabilities
White label
Yes
Yes
Branding control
Logo, Colours, Full CSS/theme +2 more
Logo, Colours, Custom domain +2 more
Integrations & reach
Platforms supported
MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, DXtrade +1 more
MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker
Trader terminals
MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader +2 more
MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader +1 more
Named integrations
Counts what the vendor names publicly, whether it ships natively, is a supported partner, or is something you build against their API.
20
15
Of those, shipped natively
"Ships it" and "connects to it" are different purchases. Only the first needs no work from you.
7
1
API surface
REST, Webhooks
Webhooks
Sandbox environment
Yes
Not published
Running it
Time to go live
The vendor’s own figure. Where they quote a range, the upper bound is used.
~2 weeks
~11 days
Deployment models
SaaS, white label, self-hosted and on-premise are different products with different obligations — neither column wins by default.
SaaS, White Label, Self Hosted
SaaS, White Label
Support channels
Live chat, Email, Phone, Telegram +1 more
Email, Phone
Support hours
Monday to Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM Central European Time, with a 24/7 emergency phone line
24/7
First response time
Prop firms break at 3am on a Sunday, so read this alongside the support hours row.
About five minutes
Average 2 hours
Dedicated account manager
Yes
Not published
Migration support off an incumbent
Yes
Yes
Training included
Yes
Yes
Security & track record
Security practices published
5 practices
4 practices
Prop firms currently powered
A vendor-reported figure. Scale is evidence of durability, not of fit for your firm.
Not published
50
Named client firms
Only firms one side or the other names publicly. Confidential clients are excluded by design.
Not published
MyFlashFunding, Glow Node, Sure Leverage Funding +5 more
Years in market
19
4
Headquarters
Gzira, Malta
Exeter, United Kingdom
Prop Tech Pal verification
Verified
Verified
Contract & exit
Who owns your data
The single most expensive line in a prop tech contract to get wrong.
The firm
Not published
Data export formats
CSV, API
Not published
Disclosure grade
Prop Tech Pal’s own measure of how much of the diligence surface the vendor publishes. It grades transparency, never product quality.
D (41/100)
D (33/100)
Money figures are normalised: twelve months on the cheapest recurring tier plus any published setup fee, excluding per-account and revenue-share components, which depend on your own volume. Prop Tech Pal does not sell placement in this comparison — how every figure here is computed is set out in full on the methodology page.
Ask on the first call
11Everything below is missing from the public record, so this comparison cannot settle it. A vendor not publishing something is not evidence of anything — it is a question you have to ask rather than look up.
A public price
Kenmore Design
Contract length and notice period
Kenmore Design
Named security certifications
Kenmore Design
An uptime figure or status page
Kenmore Design
Firms powered or named clients
Kenmore Design
A public price
Propriotec
What the price covers
Propriotec
Contract length and notice period
Propriotec
Data ownership and export on exit
Propriotec
Named security certifications
Propriotec
An uptime figure or status page
Propriotec
Frequently asked questions
5Neither vendor publishes a price we can normalise. At least one of them quotes every deal individually. That is common in this market and is not by itself a red flag, but it does mean the only way to compare them on cost is to take both to a quote with the same account volume, the same modules and the same contract length, and compare the two proposals rather than the two websites.
Kenmore Design quotes ~2 weeks to go live and Propriotec quotes ~11 days. Both are vendor-stated and both assume you arrive with your entity, banking, KYC provider and rule set already decided — in practice the vendor is rarely the long pole. On migration off an incumbent, Kenmore Design offers support and Propriotec offers support.
Kenmore Design names 20 integrations, 7 of them native and supports MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, DXtrade, TradeLocker. Propriotec names 15, 1 native and supports MT4, MT5, cTrader, Match-Trader, TradeLocker. Check the type as well as the count: something that ships natively costs you nothing to turn on, a partner integration usually costs a second contract, and an API-only integration is engineering work you own.
Kenmore Design scores 41/100 on our disclosure grade (D — mostly sales-led) and Propriotec scores 33/100 (D). Kenmore Design does not publish: a public price; contract length and notice period; named security certifications; an uptime figure or status page; firms powered or named clients. Propriotec does not publish: a public price; what the price covers; contract length and notice period; data ownership and export on exit; named security certifications; an uptime figure or status page. The grade measures transparency, not quality — a strong vendor with a sales-led motion can score badly. Use the gaps as the agenda for the first call.
On the 12 directly comparable measures on this page, Kenmore Design leads on 5 and Propriotec on 1, with 6 tied, and 19 carrying no winner at all. Which of those matters depends on the firm you are running: cost dominates before you have volume and stops dominating after, integration depth decides how much engineering you own, and contract terms decide how expensive it is to be wrong. Prop Tech Pal does not recommend one vendor over another and does not sell placement in this comparison.
Stay Ahead in Prop Firm Tech
Compare verified providers, track new integrations, and get vendor pricing updates as they land.
Resources
All information provided on this site is intended solely for educational and informational purposes related to prop firm technology and does not serve in any way as a specific procurement recommendation, business recommendation, investment opportunity analysis, or similar general recommendation.
Prop Tech Pal provides comparison, review, and educational resources only. We do not operate as a proprietary trading firm, technology vendor, broker, or custodian, do not offer simulated trading accounts or evaluations, and do not provide execution or custody of funds.
The information on this site is not directed at residents in any country or jurisdiction where such distribution or use would be contrary to local laws or regulations.
Prop Tech Pal does not act as a broker and does not accept any deposits.
Data, tools, and third-party references on this site are provided for informational purposes; availability and accuracy may depend on third-party sources outside our control.
© 2026 Prop Tech Pal. All rights reserved.