EA Ranking

Ranked on the accounts of the people who bought them

Every product carries two independent sets of numbers: what the author shows on their own accounts, and what buyers actually got. The second one the author cannot touch — they can neither add an account to it nor remove an inconvenient one.

Live accounts only · participation is voluntary and can be switched off at any time
Why it exists

A seller cannot be checked before you pay

The market for expert advisors is built so that the only evidence available before purchase is supplied by the person selling. Four consequences follow, and every one of them costs the buyer money.

The monitoring is run by the seller

The account on display was chosen by the author — and chosen after the result was already known. Ten accounts traded, one is shown.

Demo passed off as trading

Without slippage, requotes and real execution a demo result says nothing about an EA. In this ranking demo accounts are not accepted at all.

Mechanics hidden behind words

«Scalper», «intelligent algorithm», «proprietary position management» — any of these can be a martingale that draws a flat curve for six months and closes the account in a day.

Reviews are not data

Whoever lost money more often leaves quietly than writes an analysis. The loudest voice is rarely the representative one.

01

Two contours, and the second matters more

The author connects their own accounts and backtests — that is the first contour, and it is theirs to curate. The second is assembled from the accounts of buyers who switched participation on themselves. It is the one worth reading, precisely because it cannot be arranged.

  • Author monitoring — connected accounts become public in full: curve, trades, broker, server. The login is never shown.
  • Independent aggregate — the author cannot add a single account to it, and cannot remove one either.
  • The gap between the two is stated openly: how reproducible the author's result turned out to be.
  • Every buyer source is verified against the product — on adding, and then every night.
02

Risk is measured from trades, not read from the description

Martingale, grid, missing broker-side stop — all of it is derived from lot progression and the sequence of positions, separately for each magic series, so two advisors on one account are not mistaken for one martingale.

  • A flag is raised only when the pattern is confirmed on the majority of sources: one person adding lots by hand is a property of that person.
  • Declaring mechanics honestly turns a red «undisclosed risk» flag into a green «disclosure verified» one.
  • Pyramiding is shown but never penalised — adding along the move is position management, not averaging into a loss.
  • A flag is a flag, not a verdict: a martingale is a property of a strategy, and the reader decides what to make of it.
03

A score you can take apart

Drawdown, recovery factor, expectancy, profit factor and the share of profitable sources — each saturating, so a single outlier cannot buy the top of the table. The methodology opens in one click from the ranking, and its numbers are read from the live settings rather than retyped by hand.

  • Everything is measured in R — net result over the balance at the moment the trade opened, so accounts of any size are comparable.
  • The less is known about a product, the harder its score is pulled towards the catalogue median.
  • Age is a multiplier, not a bonus: a product with no history simply has not had time to draw down.
  • A dash means «not computed», never zero and never a guess.
04

What participants actually got

Not one averaged curve but a fan of them: the median, the middle half and the tails across every account. Each one starts at zero on the first day of the window, so accounts of different age can be compared at all.

  • Percentile bands over any period — the spread of outcomes rather than the best of them.
  • A breakdown by broker: where exactly the same advisor works better.
  • Participation publishes nothing: the curve, the trades and the account number stay private, and the author never learns who took part.
  • A complaint is read by a moderator, not by a robot — and nothing about the product changes while it is being reviewed.
Who it is for

Three different questions, one set of data

The same numbers answer very different things depending on which side of the purchase you are on.

Buying an advisor

See what the product gave people rather than its author. Find out whether there is a martingale under the smooth curve — and how the result looks at your own broker.

Selling an advisor

Show a second source of data that you do not control. It is the strongest trust signal available, and it separates you from anyone displaying a hand-picked account.

Trading a prop account

Find out whether an advisor survives firm rules before you attach it: drawdown, behaviour of position series, presence of a broker-side stop.

Honestly

What this ranking does not claim

The section is built on numbers being trustworthy, so its limits belong on this page rather than in the small print.

Past results predict nothing

Not a single figure on a card is a forecast. A strategy that worked for two years can stop working tomorrow.

The sample is skewed by survival

Participants opted in themselves. Whoever abandoned the advisor after losses is underrepresented, and we do not correct for it.

Flags are assigned by an algorithm

It can produce false positives. A flag is a reason to look closer, not proof of anything.

Two kinds of metric, never mixed

Pooled figures describe the strategy, percentile figures describe what a typical participant got. They are computed differently and are not comparable with each other.

FX Monitor accepts no payment for placement in this ranking. Advisors authored by FX Monitor are excluded both from the ranking and from the catalogue median used to shrink scores — otherwise we would be setting the bar we are measured against.

Look at the second column

The one the seller could not choose.

Open the ranking