Head to head

TitanForge EA MT5 vs Zerqon 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.

TitanForge EA MT5 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: 30.12▲; 1.33
Payoff ratioAverage win divided by average loss: 2.74▲; 0.18
Max drawdownDeepest fall from a previous high: 30.0%; 18.8%▲
Recovery factorNet profit per unit of worst fall: 4.72; 9.35▲
Growth per monthTotal growth compounded to a monthly rate: 84.61%▲; 24.89%
Win rateNot scored — a high win rate is only good if the payoff supports it: 91.7%; 88.3%
Record lengthHow much evidence there is: 4 months; 7 months
TradesSample size behind every figure above: 24; 1,511
Total growthNot comparable on its own — the records cover different spans: 1167.7%; 414.0%
Account sizePercentages compound faster on a small balance: $5,000; $300

Full pageView TitanForge EA MT5 →View Zerqon EA →

Why these two are not quite like-for-like

One record is 1.8× longer than the other — Zerqon EA has had more time to meet a market it dislikes, which cuts both ways when reading its drawdown.
The tracked accounts are 17× apart in size. Percentage growth compounds much faster on a small balance, so the growth figures are not the like-for-like they look.

What each record shows

MT5 · Expert Advisor · XAUUSD