Head to head

Quantum Emperor MT5vsZerqon EA

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.

Zerqon EA leads on 3 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: 2.26▲; 1.36
Payoff ratioAverage win divided by average loss: 0.20▲; 0.18
Max drawdownDeepest fall from a previous high: 31.1%; 17.7%▲
Recovery factorNet profit per unit of worst fall: 3.03; 4.61▲
Growth per monthTotal growth compounded to a monthly rate: 9.01%; 27.34%▲
Win rateNot scored — a high win rate is only good if the payoff supports it: 91.7%; 88.5%
Record lengthHow much evidence there is: 13 months; 7 months
TradesSample size behind every figure above: 1,039; 1,500
Total growthNot comparable on its own — the records cover different spans: 197.9%; 442.7%
Account sizePercentages compound faster on a small balance: $250; $300

Full pageView Quantum Emperor MT5 →View Zerqon EA →

Why these two are not quite like-for-like

The two are measured from different sources — Quantum Emperor MT5 from published statistics, Zerqon EA from trade history. The ratios are computed the same way, but only a trade-by-trade history supports the full set of risk checks.
One record is 1.8× longer than the other — Quantum Emperor MT5 has had more time to meet a market it dislikes, which cuts both ways when reading its drawdown.
They trade different instruments — GBPUSD against XAUUSD — so the two records were made in different markets.

What each record shows

MT5 · Expert Advisor · GBPUSD