Comparing two EAs side by side: which metrics decide it

Why gain is the wrong tiebreaker

Comparing two EAs side by side sounds simple until you realise that almost every number on a sales page depends on a choice the developer made. Gain depends on risk per trade. Drawdown depends on account size. Win rate depends on where the stop sits. Two forex robots with identical logic can show +22% and +140% in the same year because one ran at 0.5% risk and the other at 3%. If you pick the bigger number you have not compared strategies; you have compared leverage.

The method below strips that out. It works for automated trading systems, copy-trading accounts and manual signal providers, and it uses figures that every verified account page on ConfirmedTrades shows in the same place.

Step 1: put both on the same verification footing

Never compare a broker-verified record with a self-reported one as if they were equal evidence. If EA A is Broker-verified and EA B is Self-reported, B's numbers get a heavy discount before you start, however good they look. The same goes for Real against Demo and for a 24-month record against a 4-month one. A fair comparison needs roughly equal trust and roughly equal sample size; otherwise the comparison is between a fact and a claim.

On Rankings, filter to EA and tick Verified only so both candidates are drawn from the same pool. Then open each page and note trade count, months running and account type before you look at a single performance figure.

Step 2: normalise for risk

Divide gain by maximum drawdown to get a crude return-to-risk ratio, then compare that rather than gain. EA A: +38% gain, 12% max drawdown, ratio 3.2. EA B: +95% gain, 41% max drawdown, ratio 2.3. B made more money and took more than three times the pain to do it; scaled to the same drawdown, A would have made more. The Performance depth section gives you the proper versions of this: Calmar ratio, Sortino, recovery factor and Ulcer index. Calmar is the one to compare first because it is exactly annualised return over maximum drawdown.

Then check average lot size relative to balance under Total lots and the Risk sizing panel in the Risk Lab, where present. If B is simply A at triple risk, the comparison is over: pick A and set your own size with the position size calculator.

Step 3: compare the shape of the losses

Two EAs with the same Calmar can have completely different loss profiles. Look at three things under Performance depth. The Deepest drawdowns table shows the worst periods and how long recovery took; an EA that recovers in three weeks is different from one that took seven months. The Streaks panel shows the longest run of losers; eight consecutive losses at 1% each is survivable, eight at 4% is a 28% hole. The Trade P/L distribution shows whether losses are clustered in a few very large trades.

Now go to Money flow and compare the permanent drawdown record for each. It is the worst balance and equity drawdown the account has ever reached, it never improves, and it survives reconnecting. If EA B's permanent equity drawdown is 58% while its headline max drawdown is 41%, B has had a worse period than its page suggests, and the comparison just changed.

Step 4: compare consistency, not totals

Switch the Monthly returns section to the Summary view and compare average month, best month, worst month and the share of profitable months. An EA whose gain came from two months of +30% with the rest flat is a different product from one with twenty months between +1% and +4%. Use the Calendar view to see whether both EAs' bad months coincide. If they lost money in the same weeks, running both is not diversification. The Rolling win rate chart also shows whether the edge is steady or fading.

The Score's consistency component does some of this for you. If two EAs have similar Scores, open the breakdown and see which one is carried by profitability and which by consistency and longevity. I would take the second almost every time.

Step 5: compare execution and transferability

An edge that depends on a specific broker's feed is not an edge you can buy. The Execution tab shows spread and slippage in points per symbol for each account. Compare the average profit per trade in points against that spread. EA A: 60 points average profit, 9-point spread. EA B: 14 points average profit, 6-point spread. A's edge survives a worse broker; B's does not. Put your own broker's figures through the slippage cost calculator for each EA's trade count and you will have the cost in money.

Also compare the By symbol tables. If both EAs make 80% of their profit on the same pair during the same hours, you are comparing two versions of one idea, and the one with the longer verified history wins.

Step 6: use the Compare view

Once you have a free account and follow the candidates, the dashboard Compare page overlays the growth curves of up to five accounts on one chart, alongside gain, drawdown and consistency. This is where the 'shape' comparison becomes obvious: two curves that rise together and dip in different places are a portfolio; two that dip together are one risk. Use it for your own accounts as well as followed ones, so a candidate EA can be compared directly against what you already run.

Finally, if the owners allow it, run the same Custom Analysis on each: the last six months only, or a single instrument, or trades over 0.5 lots. Comparing both records over the same recent window is the fairest test of all, and using Custom Analysis to stress-test a signal gives a full set of filters to try.

Deciding

My order of precedence: verification and sample first, then Calmar and the permanent drawdown record, then consistency, then execution, then gain. Gain last. If you want a single sentence: choose the EA you could keep running through its worst recorded period without touching it, because that is the only EA whose track record you will ever actually get.