Percent return and max drawdown are arithmetic on fallback deposit, fixed lots, no compounding. USD figures are divided by 1,000 USD, the fallback deposit (vendor names none). Run capital of 100,000 USD is the measurement frame, not the story basis.
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.
Axora Gold is sold by mouadech-charfi for a listed $99.00 on MQL5 Market.
The observed backtest (red) against 1000 block-bootstrap paths of its daily results, in percent of the 100,000 USD run capital (not the vendor deposit). Median dashed, bands P25 to P75 and P5 to P95. Hover or touch for exact values per trading day.
7 findings, 3 of them red.
6,153 trades, rebuilt deal by deal.
sampled at deal timestamps. Intrabar floating equity between deals is unobservable from a report, so the tester-head equity DD (tick-based) is the upper reference before added commissions; validation allows their total cost divided by initial capital, scaled by the native drawdown bound above 100%
The measurement record
| Trades reconstructed | 6,153 | exact |
| Pairing confidence | exact | |
| Balance reconstruction | exact | |
| History quality | 100% real ticks | exact |
| Real ticks from | XAUUSD: 2003.05.05 00:00:00 | |
| Generated tick minutes | n/a | |
| Execution delay | 10 ms | |
| Tester log provided | yes | |
| Tester log files | 20260930.log | |
| Randomizer prints | 0 | |
| Report SHA-256 | 56a889f061666c2f... |
Reconstructed floating equity
| Floating drawdown (sampled, of running peak) | 0.7% | reconstructed |
| Balance drawdown (deal-wise, of running peak) | 0.7% | reconstructed |
| Report-head equity DD (tick-based) | 0.51% (511.61) | exact |
| Equity samples (deal timestamps) | 12,306 | |
| Worst sampled point | 2026-01-06 04:10:05 at 99,966.75 (from 100,700) | reconstructed |
| Equity between deals | unobservable in a tester report | unavailable |
Settings used in this run: axora-gold-mt5.set (Version 3.00; 2,152 bytes). Measurement configuration of this audit, not a recommendation.
4 sub-strategies, one exit signature.
The deal comments split into 4 sub-strategies with unequal contributions.
Sub-strategy table
Entry-comment prefix: "AX ". The split is based on entry comments. MT5 tester artifacts do not carry magic numbers, so magic-only multi-strategy EAs appear as one group here.
| Setup | Trades | PnL | Win % | Long/Short | Median hold (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | 2,016 | 328 | 58.2% | 1051/965 | 0.02 |
| Pulse | 1,538 | 382 | 58.3% | 726/812 | 0.01 |
| Core | 1,364 | 309 | 57.6% | 636/728 | 0.01 |
| Sweep | 1,235 | 227 | 56.8% | 633/602 | 0.03 |
How trades actually ended
Nearly all exits are stop-loss exits with a material share closing in profit, a trailing-stop management signature.
The symbol itself moved +747.5%.
approximated from entry prices, because a tester report carries no independent price series. HOLD is buying and holding the median traded lot size over the same span, before costs, using the contract value calibrated from this run's own paired deals. It is additive like the strategy PnL, so the three bars share one USD scale. Percent figures in the tooltips are arithmetic on the evaluation deposit (the vendor recommendation, or 1,000 USD when none is published), no compounding.
Underlying table
| Symbol | Trades | Entry-price move | Traded span | Long/Short trades | Long PnL | Short PnL | Buy and hold |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD | 6,153 | +747.5% | 2005-12-14 … 2026-08-13 | 3046/3107 | 547 (+54.7%) | 699 (+69.9%) | 3,875 (+387.5%) |
approximated from entry prices, because a tester report carries no independent price series. The buy-and-hold column is the entry-price move expressed in USD at the median traded lot size, before costs, using the contract value calibrated from this run's own paired deals. It is additive like the PnL columns. Percent figures in brackets are arithmetic on the evaluation deposit (the vendor recommendation, or 1,000 USD when none is published), no compounding.
22 calendar years on record.
Year-by-year table
| Year | Trades | PnL | Win % | Long PnL | Short PnL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 4 | -2 | 0.0% | 0 | -2 |
| 2006 | 48 | -30 | 0.0% | -11 | -19 |
| 2007 | 34 | -2 | 38.2% | -1 | -1 |
| 2008 | 271 | 92 | 55.4% | -13 | 105 |
| 2009 | 140 | 144 | 66.4% | 69 | 76 |
| 2010 | 110 | 70 | 58.2% | 1 | 69 |
| 2011 | 374 | 243 | 63.4% | 52 | 191 |
| 2012 | 204 | 96 | 56.4% | 21 | 75 |
| 2013 | 252 | 31 | 54.8% | 70 | -38 |
| 2014 | 107 | 11 | 56.1% | 7 | 4 |
| 2015 | 88 | -3 | 58.0% | 22 | -25 |
| 2016 | 116 | 37 | 67.2% | 30 | 7 |
| 2017 | 21 | 2 | 61.9% | -7 | 9 |
| 2018 | 20 | -12 | 45.0% | 1 | -13 |
| 2019 | 104 | 17 | 64.4% | -2 | 19 |
| 2020 | 424 | -105 | 53.5% | -72 | -33 |
| 2021 | 246 | -161 | 40.7% | -63 | -99 |
| 2022 | 300 | -114 | 50.0% | -44 | -70 |
| 2023 | 243 | -51 | 52.7% | 5 | -56 |
| 2024 | 438 | 14 | 60.5% | 6 | 9 |
| 2025 | 1,188 | -305 | 54.0% | -113 | -192 |
| 2026 | 1,421 | 1,274 | 67.4% | 589 | 685 |
Costs include the commission retrofit.
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
The report-head "Sharpe" is trade-based and not comparable to an annualized daily Sharpe. The EOD figure is the honest one.
Cost and metric table
| Net profit | 1,246.07 | reconstructed |
| Commission | -492.24 | reconstructed |
| Commission model | commission retrofitted at 3.50/lot/side, not tester-native | |
| Swap | 8.73 | reconstructed |
| Gross before costs | 1,729.58 | reconstructed |
| Cost share of gross | 28.0% | reconstructed |
| Overnight trades | 25 | reconstructed |
| Tested history | First trade 2.6 years after the window opens. The tested history effectively starts 2005-12-14 | exact |
| EOD Sharpe (annualized) | 0.82 | reconstructed |
| Report-head 'Sharpe' | 25.93 | exact |
| CAGR | 0.1% on 100,000 USD run capital | reconstructed |
| Max drawdown (EOD) | 73.3% of 1,000 USD fallback deposit | reconstructed |
80% of the profit happened on 26 of 1,401 active trading days (1.9%). That is 0.4% of the 23.4 year window.
That is 1.9% of 1401 trading days. Miss a handful of days and the edge is gone. Consistency rules at prop firms punish exactly this profile.
Best days
Worst days
The deepest drawdown recovered after 1,681 trading days.
Episode table
Top 3 of 59 episodes on the end-of-day balance curve.
| # | Peak | Trough | Depth (% of deposit) | To trough | Underwater | Trades (losers) | Worst trade | Setups digging the hole |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2019-12-05 (100,700) | 2026-01-05 (99,967) | 733 (73.3%) | 1587 d | 1681 d (recovered 2026-05-15) | 2863 (1338) | -19 on 2025-12-26 | Range -268 (951), Core -172 (644), Sweep -147 (539) |
| 2 | 2013-09-02 (100,683) | 2015-09-30 (100,627) | 57 (5.7%) | 542 d | 746 d (recovered 2016-07-12) | 250 (122) | -12 on 2013-09-17 | Sweep -24 (85), Pulse -22 (32), Range -6 (105) |
| 3 | 2008-10-16 (100,106) | 2008-12-08 (100,057) | 49 (4.9%) | 37 d | 96 d (recovered 2009-02-27) | 68 (39) | -3 on 2008-10-28 | Core -15 (13), Range -13 (23), Sweep -12 (16) |
end-of-day balance curve, peak to recovery, the same series as 'Max drawdown (EOD)': the deepest episode's USD depth is that figure's basis. trades listed are those CLOSED between the peak and trough day. Floating drawdown between day boundaries is invisible here, see the reconstructed-equity section where present.
0.0% of all start points end in a dead account.
If you had started this EA fresh at any trade entry or exit of the tested history with a fresh 1,000 USD account (the standard fallback deposit. The run itself used 100,000 USD as measurement frame), 0.0% of all 12,306 start points end in a dead account. Busy stretches carry more start points than quiet ones. The strip shows the measured fate of every start point. The curve below it shows why.
No death zones at this deposit. No start point loses a full deposit from its entry level on the closed balance curve.
Drawdown ribbon
The same history as one color band: how deep the account sat under its running peak in any week, measured against the 1,000 USD basis. Red weeks are the phases where a fresh account entering just before would have been wiped out.
Computed death chain. Zero account deaths over the full history at this deposit (balance to zero on the closed curve). The final run is alive for 7548 days since 2005-12-14.
Deposit ladder
| Deposit | Share of dying start points | Computed chain deaths |
|---|---|---|
| 1,000 USD (fallback) | 0.0% | 0 |
| 2,000 USD | 0.0% | 0 |
| 4,000 USD | 0.0% | 0 |
Basis: closed balance curve; floating drawdown is usually stricter, but with positions open in profit the balance curve can be the stricter one. Fixed lot settings only (measured lot policy: fixed lots). For compounding EAs this map is not transferable. Evaluation deposit 1,000 USD (our fallback, the vendor names no deposit). Run capital 100,000 USD is the measurement frame. Small gap on each restart day of a chain is inherent to the tester workflow.
Nothing in this test is guaranteed out of sample.
Every trade in the test predates the release.
Product facts: released 2026-09-10, 0 recorded version entries, list price 99 USD.
The backtest runs the CURRENT version over the whole history. Every candle before the release was visible while the EA was built. Only the window after the last update is guaranteed out of sample, and the data of this test ends before it, so no window of this run is guaranteed out of sample.
Price on record: 99 USD since 2026-09-16 (tracking baseline, append-only archive).
Window table
| Window | From | To | Days | Trades | Net USD | PF | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before release | 2005-12-14 | 2026-08-13 | 7,548 | 6,153 | 1,246.07 | 1.23 | 57.8% |
| Release to last update | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a |
| After last update (out of sample) | n/a | n/a | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | n/a | n/a |
The whole edge dies at +0.20 USD extra cost per trade.
Add that much cost to every trade (worse spread, slippage, commission) and the result is gone. The average position size is 0.01 lots.
Cost shock
Remove the best N trades
Sensitivity tables
| Extra cost per trade | Net profit | Profit factor | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|
| +0.50 USD | -1,830 | 0.728 | 56.7 |
| +1.00 USD | -4,907 | 0.405 | 38.6 |
| +2.00 USD | -11,060 | 0.138 | 16.6 |
| +5.00 USD | -29,519 | 0.014 | 2.9 |
| Best trades removed | Their PnL | Share of gross wins | Net without them |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25 | 0.4% | 1,221 |
| 5 | 85 | 1.3% | 1,162 |
| 10 | 151 | 2.3% | 1,095 |
| 20 | 274 | 4.1% | 972 |
flat USD shock per trade, not lot-scaled, so judge it against the average lot size. Leave-best-out removes the N most profitable trades from the observed set.
3 rule sets, simulated day by day.
IQ Capital Classic (funded)
Account deaths per sizing
10 breach years under the consistency rule, 10 loss years not evaluable
Rules used for this simulation (as of 2026-08-13)
| dd_mode | eod_trailing |
| dd_pct | 6.0 |
| max_position_loss_pct | 0.5 |
| consistency_pct | 30.0 |
| overnight_allowed | True |
| weekend_allowed | True |
Source: https://support.iqcapital.io
Worst days: -60 on 2025-12-26, -39 on 2026-03-12, -28 on 2025-04-07 · 25 overnight trades · 0 spanning weekends
FTMO Challenge
Account deaths per sizing
The intraday row samples equity against the day anchor (server-day boundary). The EOD row is shown for comparison.
Rules used for this simulation (as of 2026-08-13)
| dd_mode | static |
| dd_pct | 10.0 |
| daily_loss_pct | 5.0 |
| overnight_allowed | True |
| weekend_allowed | True |
Source: https://ftmo.com/en/how-it-works/ + academy/maximum-daily-loss + faq weekend
Worst days: -60 on 2025-12-26, -39 on 2026-03-12, -28 on 2025-04-07 · 25 overnight trades · 0 spanning weekends
Generic 6% EOD trailing
Account deaths per sizing
Rules used for this simulation (as of 2026-08-12)
| dd_mode | eod_trailing |
| dd_pct | 6.0 |
| overnight_allowed | True |
| weekend_allowed | True |
Source: generic profile, no firm source
Worst days: -60 on 2025-12-26, -39 on 2026-03-12, -28 on 2025-04-07 · 25 overnight trades · 0 spanning weekends
The same history, a thousand resampled paths.
1000 paths per method, seed 42, block length 5 trading days, additive resampling at the tested sizing. Drawdowns are expressed as % of the start balance, the run capital of the tester, not the vendor deposit. Paths are not stopped at account death, so drawdowns beyond 100% mean repeated wipeouts at this sizing.
Resampled max-drawdown range vs. observed
Bars and observed marker use percent of the 100,000 USD run capital (not the vendor deposit).
Bootstrap intervals
The share of resampled paths ending at or below zero net profit is 0.0%.
Streaks and recovery (block-bootstrap paths)
| Metric | Median | P90 | P95 | P99 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max losing streak (days) | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 |
| Time under water (days) | 933 | 1697 | 1974 | 2805 |
Ruin probability per profile and sizing
| Profile | 1/1 | 1/1.5 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/6 | 1/8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| iqcapital_classicfloor 6.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ftmo_challengefloor 10.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| generic_6pct_trailingfloor 6.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cell = probability that a resampled path breaches the profile floor at that sizing, in percent. Green ring = first sizing at or below the 10% target. This checks the floor only. The full rule set is stricter.
Challenge pass probability, ftmo_challenge
phase1: pass 0.0%, fail 0.0%, undecided 100.0%.
100.0% of paths reached neither the target nor a failure boundary within 5,392 days.
phase2: pass 0.0%, fail 0.0%, undecided 100.0%.
100.0% of paths reached neither the target nor a failure boundary within 5,392 days.
The probability of passing both phases (independent-resample approximation) is 0.0%.
Challenge detail tables
ftmo_challenge. Daily and floor checks are based on intraday-sampled equity vs. day anchor.
| Stage | Target | P(pass) | P(fail: floor) | P(fail: daily) | Undecided | Median days to pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| phase1 | 10% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | n/a |
| phase2 | 5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 100.0% | n/a |
Does reducing risk raise the pass chance? Phase 1 at each sizing.
| Sizing | 1/1 | 1/1.5 | 1/2 | 1/3 | 1/4 | 1/6 | 1/8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P(pass) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Median days | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
- Monte Carlo resamples the SIMULATED trades of this backtest. It inherits every weakness of the simulation (in-sample bias, regime luck, execution gap) and cannot add information. All it does is reveal how fragile the observed path is.
- Same trades, different order. This answers only how path-dependent the drawdown is. Treats trades as exchangeable, which grid and martingale sequences are not (their order is caused by the market path), so read this as a diagnostic, not a forecast.
- Draws trades independently with replacement (IID assumption). Real EAs violate IID through clustering and position chains. Intervals are tighter than reality for such systems.
- Resamples 5-trading-day blocks of the end-of-day PnL series. The blocks are circular and wrap at the series end, so every day carries equal weight. Without wrapping, a crash on the final day would be undersampled. This preserves short-range clustering and losing streaks up to the block length. Longer regime shifts remain unmodeled.
- Floor breaches only, on block-bootstrap paths over a horizon equal to the tested history, profits above start swept (same convention as the prop-fit sweep). The firms' full rule sets (daily loss, consistency, position loss) are stricter, so treat every probability as a lower bound, and the safe-sizing answer as an upper bound on the truly safe size.
- The fan bands are pointwise percentiles across resampled paths. The envelope is not a single achievable path. Paths use the tested sizing and are not stopped at account death.
- Challenge-pass probabilities run each resampled path until profit target, max-loss floor or a daily-loss day is hit (checked in that day's order, daily first, then floor). Where the audit has reconstructed equity, daily-loss and floor checks use the intraday equity drop below the day anchor (sampled at deal timestamps, server-day boundary), which is still a lower bound on breaches, but far closer to the firms' equity-based rules than EOD deltas. Phases are treated as independent resamples for the combined figure. The sizing curve keeps the targets fixed while scaling the trading, which is why less risk can also mean more undecided paths.
The longest dry stretch lasted 77 months.
Lot policy detected: fixed lots. Withdrawn percent per year is on the 100,000.0 USD run capital of this test. The monthly rule (monthly sweep to start balance) covers the active span 2005-12-13 … 2026-08-13.
Monthly PnL heatmap
Across 1000 resampled paths (fixed lots), total withdrawn spans 714 to 1,298 to 1,904 USD (P5/median/P95). The share of paths paying nothing at all is 0.0%.
Capital what-if (fixed lots)
Withdrawal and what-if tables
| Sizing model | Months paid | Total withdrawn | Withdrawn %/a of run capital | Median paid month | Best month | Dry streak (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| fixed lots | 52/249 | 1,246 | 0.06 | 8 | 182 | 77 |
| lots scale with the balance | 52/249 | 1,246 | 0.06 | 8 | 183 | 77 |
| Capital | MaxDD % | P(breach) iqcapital_classic | P(breach) ftmo_challenge | P(breach) generic_6pct_trailing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 (fallback basis) | 73.31 | 100.0% (hit) | 97.0% (hit) | 100.0% (hit) |
| 2,500 | 29.32 | 64.7% (hit) | 11.1% (hit) | 64.7% (hit) |
| 5,000 | 14.66 | 5.0% (hit) | 0.0% (hit) | 5.0% (hit) |
| 10,000 | 7.33 | 0.0% (hit) | 0.0% | 0.0% (hit) |
| 25,000 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 100,000 (tested) | 0.73 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
(hit) = the observed backtest itself breached this floor at that capital.
- Withdrawals are simulated monthly on the last trading day. Everything above the start balance is taken out. A month without surplus pays nothing. The dry-streak figure shows how long that can last. Paths are the OBSERVED backtest days. Replay deltas start at the initial deposit, so the first trading day's result is part of the path. The withdrawal distribution adds resampled paths (same circular block bootstrap as the MC section, own seed).
- The balance-scaled replay multiplies each day's PnL by balance/start. This is an approximation. Min-lot granularity and balance-coupled EA defaults do not scale linearly. The direction is optimistic for small accounts.
- Capital what-if keeps the observed USD path (fixed lots) and re-expresses risk against each capital. Margin requirements are NOT modeled. A small account may be unable to hold the positions at all. The direction is optimistic. Under balance-scaled sizing, percent metrics are unchanged by construction. Only the min-lot limit differs, which is why no table is shown.
Every 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.
This audit is free, in full.
This audit is free. The list price of this EA is at or under 200 USD, so the complete audit is open. Every number, table and simulation on this page is the full deliverable.
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 6,153 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 Axora Gold 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 Axora Gold 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 Axora Gold 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 Axora Gold 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 Axora Gold MT5. Read those and the answer becomes yours, not ours.
Audits of EAs listed or rented at 200 USD or less are free. The risk of a cheap EA is not worth a paywall, and open audits show the depth of the method. Audits of more expensive EAs are paid.
Protocol: how we test · All audits · Audit your own report · Blog
Already running Axora Gold? Check your live account against this audit, free.
Browse by category: Gold EAs · Martingale EAs · Grid EAs · Prop firm EAs · Free audits · Quantum family