Every platform that monetizes trading strategies publishes its economics somewhere, usually scattered across fee pages and support docs. This page puts the published numbers side by side. All figures are the platforms' own published terms as of July 2026; verify each before committing, because terms change.
| Path | You pay | You earn | Evidence standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| MQL5 Signals | Seller registration, real account required | 80% of subscription revenue | Real-account stats shown; no validation gate |
| MQL5 Market (EAs) | $30 minimum price, ID verification | 80% of sale price | None; backtest screenshots common |
| Collective2 | Listing fee, published at $120 per 6 months | Subscriptions minus a 30 to 50% platform share | Tracked record on-platform; no validation gate |
| Darwinex (live) | Spreads and commissions | 15% of investor profits (of a 20% fee) | Risk-normalized track record |
| Darwinex Zero | Monthly subscription, roughly 45 EUR | 15% of profits on virtual allocations | Evaluation on platform metrics |
| ZuluTrade | Broker linkage | 20% of follower profits; half held in reserve | On-platform record |
| Funded accounts (FTMO-class) | Challenge fee per attempt, roughly $150 to $1,100 | 70 to 95% split on your own funded trading | Evaluation rules, not strategy validation |
| Direct (Telegram, Discord, commerce tools) | Roughly 3 to 7% in fees | 93 to 97% of gross | None; self-reported |
| Sonar Sciences | Nothing up front; Studio is free | Not a distribution channel: validation is not charged for | Platform-computed results, out-of-sample gate, ten-day live forward round, versioned history |
Three patterns matter more than any single number. First, headline percentages mislead: keeping 95 percent of nothing is nothing, and the platforms with the biggest audiences take the biggest cuts because distribution is the scarce good. Second, who pays whom and when: funded accounts and Darwinex Zero charge the trader while evaluating them, and marketplaces charge the buyer. Sonar Sciences charges for neither, because it is not one of these paths. Third, evidence standards are the hidden economics: on platforms where fabricated or curve-fit records circulate freely, honest providers pay a permanent trust discount, and buyers churn fast, which caps everyone's revenue. A thinner audience that believes the numbers can be worth more than a huge one that does not.
Ask of any platform: does it earn when the subscriber wins, or when the subscriber pays? Flat subscription models pay the platform and the provider regardless of outcome, which is why they drift toward marketing contests. Performance-linked models such as Darwinex's fee only pay when followers profit, which changes what kind of strategy is rational to publish. Sonar Sciences sits outside that spectrum on purpose: it is not a distribution channel, so nothing is charged for validation at all. Alignment is not a moral flourish; it is a filter on the supply side that buyers can feel.
The full decision logic across paths is in the monetization guide; the funded-account odds get their own treatment in the prop-firm analysis; and the per-platform comparisons, including what Sonar Sciences does and does not offer, are on the compare pages for Collective2, Darwinex Zero, and MQL5.
At published July 2026 terms: MQL5 takes 20 percent of subscriptions and sales, Collective2 takes a listing fee plus a 30 to 50 percent share, Darwinex passes 15 of its 20 percent performance fee to the provider, ZuluTrade pays 20 percent of follower profits with half held in reserve, and direct selling costs roughly 3 to 7 percent in fees but includes no audience. Sonar Sciences is not on that list: it does not distribute strategies and takes no share of anybody's subscribers. It charges nothing for validation.
Percentage-wise, direct selling; practically, the platform where your strategy earns trust fastest, because distribution and credibility dominate the split. A provider keeping 80 percent on a marketplace with real discovery usually out-earns one keeping 96 percent of an audience of forty. Judge paths by expected income, not by the platform's cut.
Win-share models align the platform with the follower: no winning trades, no revenue. Subscription models pay everyone regardless of outcome, which historically pushed platforms toward marketing-driven discovery and providers toward aggressive trading to justify fees. The win-share filter changes which strategies are rational to publish.
Bring one strategy you already trust. The Studio validates it against four years of real data, costs included, for free.
Start building