Head to head

BTC Anchor vs Cepheus

Both sets of figures are computed the same way from each product's own record. The measures that can be read against each other — the unit-free ratios — are scored. The ones that depend on how big the account was or how long it ran are shown underneath, unscored, because putting a winner on them would be comparing two different questions.

BTC Anchor leads on 5 of the 5 measures that can be scored.

A count of rows, not a recommendation. Which of these measures matters is a question about the account it would run on.

Profit factorEverything won divided by everything lost: 19.53▲; 1.72
Payoff ratioAverage win divided by average loss: 0.93▲; 0.54
Max drawdownDeepest fall from a previous high: 2.0%▲; 14.6%
Recovery factorNet profit per unit of worst fall: 3.48▲; 2.44
Growth per monthTotal growth compounded to a monthly rate: 42.19%▲; 23.83%
Win rateNot scored — a high win rate is only good if the payoff supports it: 95.5%; 76.1%
Record lengthHow much evidence there is: 1 months; 2 months
TradesSample size behind every figure above: 88; 67
Total growthNot comparable on its own — the records cover different spans: 38.3%; 63.5%
Account sizePercentages compound faster on a small balance: $100; CAD 100

Full pageView BTC Anchor →View Cepheus →

Why these two are not quite like-for-like

One record is 2.6× longer than the other — Cepheus has had more time to meet a market it dislikes, which cuts both ways when reading its drawdown.
The accounts are denominated differently (USD and CAD), so every currency amount below is in its own unit. The ratios are unaffected.
They trade different instruments — BTCUSD against XAUUSD — so the two records were made in different markets.

What each record shows

MT5 · Expert Advisor · BTCUSD

BTC Anchor

Nothing in the published figures raised a flag. The checks that need trade-level data could not be run.

Measured from published statistics · 88 trades · 1 months

Read the full page →

MT5 · Expert Advisor · XAUUSD

Cepheus