Head to head
De Moore vs Lizard
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.
De Moore leads on 4 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
- 6.49▲
- 2.30▲
- Payoff ratioAverage win divided by average loss
- 0.74▲
- 0.76▲
- Max drawdownDeepest fall from a previous high
- 4.6%▲
- 14.7%▲
- Recovery factorNet profit per unit of worst fall
- 11.88▲
- 3.21▲
- Growth per monthTotal growth compounded to a monthly rate
- 30.63%▲
- 19.00%▲
- Win rateNot scored — a high win rate is only good if the payoff supports it
- 89.8%▲
- 75.2%▲
- Record lengthHow much evidence there is
- 3 months▲
- 4 months▲
- TradesSample size behind every figure above
- 196▲
- 161▲
- Total growthNot comparable on its own — the records cover different spans
- 136.5%▲
- 91.8%▲
- Account sizePercentages compound faster on a small balance
- $300▲
- $250▲
Why these two are not quite like-for-like
- The two are measured from different sources — De Moore from published statistics, Lizard from trade history. The ratios are computed the same way, but only a trade-by-trade history supports the full set of risk checks.
What each record shows
MT5 · Expert Advisor · XAUUSD
De Moore
Nothing in the published figures raised a flag. The checks that need trade-level data could not be run.
Measured from published statistics · 196 trades · 3 months
Read the full page →MT5 · Expert Advisor · XAUUSD
Lizard
- Grid / basket positions
- Unbounded losses
Measured from trade history · 161 trades · 4 months
Read the full page →