Not measured here. live signal performance, individual risk sizing, alternative settings. Declared alternatives can be measured as separate matrix runs.
Sizing invariant Profit concentration, Active trading days, Trade count, Drawdown duration in trading days, Holding times, Win rate.
Sizing dependent Spread sensitivity per trade, CAGR, Drawdown in percent, Absolute PnL.
Aurex Dual is sold by Zakaria-tarik Mehadji on MQL5 Market. Its list price is not on record yet.
8 findings, 2 of them red.
The full audit answers this with every finding with severity, mechanism and the exact numbers behind it.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleEvery deal, rebuilt and verified.
The full audit answers this with the chain of custody, pairing confidence, balance reconstruction to the cent, real tick coverage and the tester log evidence.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleWhat the deal list reveals about the machinery.
The full audit answers this with grid, martingale and hedging forensics measured from the deal list, the sub strategy split and the exit signature.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleWhat the market contributed.
The full audit answers this with the symbol's own move over the traded span against the long and short profit split.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleEvery calendar year on record.
The full audit answers this with profit, trades and win rate per year, long against short, over the symbol's own move.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleCosts include the commission retrofit.
Open sample. This section is shown in full, exactly as buyers see it. Every other section goes just as deep.
From gross to net
Commission retrofitted at 3.5 USD per lot per side on every deal, rounded to the cent per deal (so a 0.01 lot deal pays 0.04 USD), not tester-native. The balance chain was rebuilt deterministically.
Which Sharpe to trust
Cost and metric table
| Net profit | 3,083.87 | reconstructed |
| Commission | -259.04 | reconstructed |
| Commission model | commission retrofitted at 3.50/lot/side, not tester-native | |
| Swap | -2,140.06 | reconstructed |
| Gross before costs | 5,482.97 | reconstructed |
| Cost share of gross | 43.8% | reconstructed |
| Overnight trades | 2,322 | reconstructed |
| Tested history | First trade 130 bars into the window. The tested history effectively starts 2003-05-12 | |
| EOD Sharpe (annualized) | 0.37 | reconstructed |
| Report-head 'Sharpe' | 0.47 | exact |
| CAGR | 0.1% on 100,000 USD run capital | reconstructed |
How few days carry the result.
The full audit answers this with the exact number of days carrying 80 percent of profit, best and worst days with dates.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleWhere the account sat under water.
The full audit answers this with the deepest drawdown episodes with depth, dates and the trades that dug each hole.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleWhat happens to a fresh account, started at any trade entry or exit.
The full audit answers this with the fresh start survival map, death zones, the computed death chain and the deposit ladder.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleHow quickly extra costs kill the edge.
The full audit answers this with the break even cost shock, the cost shock curve and the result without the best trades.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleProp firm rules, replayed day by day.
Replayed with these exact rules. The prop fit verdict above comes from these parameters, applied day by day. The numbers it produced are inside the audit.
| Rule | IQ Capital Classic (funded) | FTMO Challenge | Generic 6% EOD trailing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drawdown mode | EOD trailing | static | EOD trailing |
| Drawdown limit | 6% | 10% | 6% |
| Daily loss limit | no such rule | 5% | no such rule |
| Max loss per symbol | 0.5% | no such rule | no such rule |
| Consistency rule | 30% | no such rule | no such rule |
| Overnight positions | allowed | allowed | allowed |
| Weekend positions | allowed | allowed | allowed |
IQ Capital Classic (funded): rules as of 2026-08-13, source https://support.iqcapital.io
FTMO Challenge: rules as of 2026-08-13, source https://ftmo.com/en/how-it-works/ + academy/maximum-daily-loss + faq weekend
Generic 6% EOD trailing: rules as of 2026-08-12, generic profile, no firm source
The full audit answers this with account deaths per sizing, daily loss and consistency breaches for every rule set.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleThe same history, a thousand resampled paths.
The full audit answers this with the Monte Carlo equity fan, drawdown percentiles, losing streaks, ruin probability and challenge pass rates.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleCould you live off it?
The full audit answers this with the withdrawal replay with months paid, dry streaks, the monthly heatmap and the capital what if.
The exact numbers, once the audit is for saleEvery term, in plain language.
Glossary
| Pairing confidence | How entry and exit deals were matched into trades. 'Exact' means taken from the tester log, 'validated' means FIFO/LIFO reproduced the report's holding-time figures, and 'heuristic' means an unconfirmed FIFO assumption. |
| EOD Sharpe (annualized) | Sharpe ratio computed from end-of-day balance returns, annualized with the square root of 252. Comparable across systems, unlike the report-head 'Sharpe', which is per-trade. |
| Cost share of gross | Commission plus swap as a share of gross profit before costs. High values mean the edge is eaten by fees and financing. |
| Max drawdown (EOD) | Largest peak-to-trough loss of the end-of-day balance curve. |
| Floating drawdown (sampled) | Largest drawdown of reconstructed equity (balance plus open-position value), sampled at deal timestamps. Between deals equity is unobservable from a report. The tester-head equity DD is tick-based. |
| Martingale | Position sizing that grows after losses. Looks smooth for months, then loses the account in one streak. |
| Consistency rule | Prop-firm rule capping the best day's share of total profit. It punishes concentrated profit profiles. |
| Account deaths | Number of times the simulated account breached the profile's drawdown floor over this history (account is then reset and the simulation continues). |
| Withdrawal %/a | In the prop firm sweep: yearly withdrawal as percent of the account size, profits above start swept daily. In the withdrawal replay: yearly withdrawal as percent of the run capital of this test, profits above start swept monthly. |
| Z-Score | Serial correlation of the win/loss sequence. Strongly negative values often just reflect several sub-strategies interleaving, not necessarily a defect. |
| Undecided | A resampled challenge path reached neither its target nor a failure boundary within the sampled horizon. Each path spans the tested history's daily observations, not the duration of a real challenge. Undecided does not mean failed. |
| Monte-Carlo resampling | Re-arranging or re-drawing the audited trades many times to see the range of drawdowns and streaks the same trading could have produced. It cannot add information. It reveals path fragility, not future returns. |
| Block bootstrap | Bootstrap that draws whole multi-day blocks of the daily PnL series instead of single trades, preserving short-range clustering (losing weeks stay losing weeks). |
| Ruin probability (floor only) | Share of resampled paths that breach the profile's drawdown floor at least once, with profits above start swept. The firm's full rule set is stricter, so this is a lower bound. |
| Time under water | Longest stretch of trading days a path spends below its previous balance peak. |
| Withdrawal replay | Re-plays the backtest with a monthly payout. On the last trading day of each month, everything above the start balance is withdrawn. Shows what the strategy pays a trader who lives off it, instead of compounding like a backtest. |
| Dry streak | Longest run of consecutive months in which the monthly withdrawal was zero, the months a trader living off the account would have earned nothing. |
| Lot policy | Whether the EA trades fixed lot sizes or scales them with the balance, detected from the variation of lot sizes across the deal list. |
| Capital what-if | The observed USD path re-expressed against a different account size (fixed lots). Drawdown percentages and floor-breach risk change with capital even though the trades are identical. Margin limits are not modeled. |
| Underlying vs. strategy | The symbol's own price move over the traded span, approximated from entry prices. If most profit is long-side while the symbol itself rose strongly, part of the result is the market's tailwind, not the mechanics. The tester cannot separate the two. |
| Drawdown episodes | One episode runs from a balance peak through its deepest trough until the peak is regained (peak to recovery), on the end-of-day balance curve. The deepest episode is the max drawdown (EOD). The table shows which trades and sub-strategies dug each hole. |
| Take-home after tax | Total withdrawn multiplied by one minus a user-supplied flat rate. Pure arithmetic on the withdrawal table, no tax law modeled. It stays off unless a rate is provided. |
| Cost fragility | How quickly the result dies as per-trade costs rise. The break-even shock is the extra cost per trade (spread, slippage, commission) at which net profit reaches zero. High-frequency systems often die at cents. |
| Fresh start survival | With fixed lots the dollar swings that follow any start point are identical for every account, so each start point has an exact, measured fate. A fresh account started there dies if the balance path later falls at least one deposit below its starting level. Death-chain runs concatenate into one continuous profit path. Computed from the closed balance curve; a floating check is usually, but not always, stricter. |
| Release timeline | The backtest runs the tested EA version over history that mostly predates it. Candles before the release were visible during development, and candles up to the last update were visible to at least one refit. Only the window after the last update is guaranteed out of sample, and it must be judged together with its length. When the vendor has shipped newer builds since the tested one, the window starts where the tested build shipped instead, because that build could not have been fitted on anything after it. |
| Provenance labels | Where a number comes from. 'Exact' is taken as printed from the tester report or journal. 'Reconstructed' is recomputed by the engine from the deal list and journal, deterministic but a model of the run. 'Unavailable' cannot be derived from a report at all and is stated instead of silently approximated. |
The honest boundary.
A good backtest cannot prove an edge. This audit dissects the simulation you gave it. It can expose structural risks (martingale, grids, hidden concentration, cost fragility, rule conflicts), but it cannot tell you that the strategy will make money. Three limits are fundamental.
- In-sample bias. Commercial EAs are typically released and updated after most of the tested window. A strong report may replay what the vendor optimized against, not what the market will do.
- Regime dependence. A profitable window can reward almost any mechanic aligned with the prevailing trend. Year slices and long/short splits above hint at this, but cannot settle it.
- Simulation gap. Even with real ticks and execution delay, the tester does not model live spreads, slippage beyond the next tick, or broker-specific behavior.
This audit is software analysis, not investment advice, and contains no recommendation to buy or trade anything.
Not for sale until the list price of the EA is on record.
Straight answers, measured where possible.
We measure it instead of guessing. The audit replays three prop rule sets (IQ Capital, FTMO, a generic 6% trailing profile) day by day over all 3,238 reconstructed trades, then runs the challenge as a Monte Carlo simulation at seven position sizings, with intraday equity resolution. Both run on the 100,000 USD run capital at a 0.01 base lot, so a 10% challenge target means 10,000 USD of profit. The pass probabilities per sizing for Aurex Dual MT5 are inside the audit.
The audit contains a withdrawal replay. The strategy is re run as if someone lived off it, with monthly payouts, months paid versus dry months and the longest dry streak, plus a safe sizing table answering how small you must trade to keep ruin risk under 10%. The numbers for Aurex Dual MT5 are inside the audit.
We classify structure from the deal list, not from the equity curve. Split tickets, adds into adverse moves and size escalation are counted, not guessed. The audit names every grid, martingale, hedging or stacking rule that fired for Aurex Dual MT5.
Vendor live signals and social screenshots are outside our control, so we do not grade them. What we audit is a controlled strategy tester run under one documented protocol, real ticks, vendor defaults except lot inputs, tester log included. That evidence is reproducible and cannot be cherry picked after the fact. The audit shows exactly what that run supports for Aurex Dual MT5.
The vendor's default inputs, in one measurement frame for every audit: a 0.01 base lot input on 100,000 USD at 1:5000 (where the EA still scales its lots, the scope box says so), so margin rarely cuts a trade short; where a run stops early, the scope box says so (see How we test). Survival, percent return and drawdown are then computed on the vendor's recommended deposit, or 1,000 USD when the vendor publishes none; CAGR, withdrawal percentages, the prop rule replay, the challenge simulation and the Monte Carlo drawdowns and ruin probabilities stay on the 100,000 USD run capital. Any changed input is recorded, and the audit lists every input of the tester run. Where a preset series exists, each preset is audited separately and the page names the one you are reading.
We do not answer that with an opinion. The audit answers it with measurements. The verdict lamps on this page are public, and behind them sit the exact numbers, the cost autopsy, the concentration test, the prop rule replay and the Monte Carlo stress for Aurex Dual MT5. Read those and the answer becomes yours, not ours.
We have not yet recorded the MQL5 list price of this EA. Audits of EAs listed or rented at 200 USD or less are free, audits of more expensive EAs are paid. Access opens once the price is on record. The verdict lamps are public now.
Protocol: how we test · All audits · Audit your own report · Blog
Already running Aurex Dual? Check your live account against this audit, free.
Browse by category: Gold EAs · Martingale EAs · Grid EAs · Prop firm EAs · Free audits · Quantum family