Guide

Comparing two copy trading strategies: the figures that matter

On a broker's platform, the strategies you can copy come as a list, sorted by return by default. It is the worst criterion to choose by, and yet it is the one the eye reads first. This guide goes through the figures on a strategy's page, says what each one really measures, and suggests a way to compare two strategies without being trapped by the most eye-catching number.

Return: the most visible figure, and the least useful on its own

A return of “+300%” says nothing until you know three things: over what period, with what worst fall along the way, and by which method of calculation. +300% in six months and +300% in four years are not the same strategy. +300% with a worst drawdown of 20% and +300% with a worst drawdown of 90% are not either.

Two reading precautions:

The method of calculation varies from one platform to another. Some measure gains against the starting capital, others chain them like compound interest, others again count deposits and withdrawals. Two strategies shown on two different platforms cannot be compared directly.
A very high return over a short period is a signal, not a promise. It usually means very high risk, or a favourable market period that will not necessarily repeat.

Worst drawdown: the figure that says what you will live through

The worst drawdown is the largest fall of the account between a peak and the trough that follows. It is the figure that says what the copier will have to bear along the way, and therefore the one that decides whether the strategy is bearable for them.

Two versions must be told apart:

The closed-trade drawdown counts only losses actually taken. It is often the one displayed, and it flatters strategies that keep their losing positions open.
The floating drawdown also counts open positions, at the worst moment. It is the one to look for, and to ask for if it is not published. Our guide Floating drawdown explains why it matters more than return.

A large gap between the two points to a grid or martingale strategy, which waits for the market to come back. That is not disqualifying, but it is a specific risk to know about.

Track-record length: the longer it is, the more the other figures are worth

Six months of history show only one market configuration. Three years show several: rising, falling, calm and turbulent periods. A strategy that has only known a favourable market has not been tested yet.

A simple rule of thumb: a short history with a spectacular return is worth less than a long history with a moderate return and a known worst drawdown. And a strategy that has “restarted” its history (new account, new page) after a big loss still has that loss in its past, even if the page no longer shows it.

Number of trades: enough for luck to stop deciding

Ten winning trades can be luck. A thousand trades over three years, much less so. The number of trades says whether the displayed return rests on a repeated method or on a few lucky hits.

Conversely, a very high number of trades over a short time, with tiny positions, can serve to inflate a “winning trades” percentage without saying anything about the overall result.

Consistency: month by month, not cumulative

A cumulative curve almost always rises, by construction. What is informative is the month-by-month detail: how many months in profit, how many in loss, of what size, and whether losing months are rare or simply hidden by open positions. A table of monthly reports is worth more than a curve.

The figures that mislead

The percentage of winning trades. 95% winning trades can hide 5% of trades that lose ten times more. It is typical of strategies that take small profits and let losses run.
The number of copiers. It measures popularity, not quality. Many copiers arrive after a good period, just as it is ending.
The strategy's capital. A large capital is a real signal: whoever runs the strategy has put their own money into it, so they trust it. A small capital, on the other hand, often serves to make gains stand out as a percentage, especially when frequent withdrawals bring the account back to its starting stake: the percentage stays high, the money actually at stake stays small.
The platform's ranking. Sorted by return, it puts the riskiest strategies of the recent period at the top.
Screenshots of gains. They never show open positions at a loss. See our guide on why results differ for what a screenshot can hide.

Comparing on equal terms: a simple grid

To compare two strategies, fill in the same table for each, with figures from the same platform and the same period:

Comparison grid: to fill in for each strategy, with figures from the same platform and the same period.
Criterion	What to note	What it tells you
Track-record length	Since what date	Under a year: not tested yet
Return over the common period	Same start date for both	Comparable only over equal periods
Worst floating drawdown	Open positions included, with its date	The figure to set against your stake
Months in profit / months in loss	Over the full history	Consistency, month by month
Number of trades	Total and per month	Enough for luck to stop deciding
Method	Grid, martingale, stop loss per trade…	What type of risk you accept
Costs	Fee, high-water mark, copying charges	What is left for you

Return comes on the second line, not the first, and always over a common period.

And at PlanetFinance?

The strategy's figures are published with their method of calculation on the Method page: +3,553% since 11 November 2022, compounded on closed trades, net of broker fees and swaps, before the copiers' fee. The worst drawdown displayed (−5.5%) counts closed trades only; the worst floating drawdown is estimated at about 75%, in April 2025, bearing in mind that position size, and therefore the risk taken, has been reduced since; that second figure is the one to use in the grid above. The Monthly reports page gives the month-by-month detail, and the Risks page describes the grid method and its risks. That is exactly what this guide invites you to ask of any strategy.