Find a strategy that actually beats buy & hold — then see how it holds up before you risk a cent.
We've run 2,407 honest backtests so you don't have to guess — 698 (29%) beat buy & hold and 1,709 lagged it. Every winner and loser is on one screen below; finding one of those few, before you risk a cent, is the whole point.
29% beat simply buying & holding; the other 71% ended at or below it. The 141 too thin to score aren't plotted. Hypothetical · not advice.
Showing the whole census: 2,407 backtests, 71% lagged buy and hold.
Whole census: 698 beat · 1,709 lagged · 29% beat
These are famous names that still trade today. Assets that delisted, went bankrupt or (for crypto) died or were rug-pulled aren't in the set (survivorship bias) — and that history isn't available from the free public data this tool runs on — so this rate isn't a representative base rate for every asset that has ever traded.
Why these numbers are honest — and their limits
Every result is a total-return excess over one fixed ~5-year window, on famous liquid assets and a chosen library of well-known strategies, costs on and next-bar fills — the same measure across the whole census. One window is not a forecast; a different period or asset set would move every number.
These are famous names that still trade today. Assets that delisted, went bankrupt or (for crypto) died or were rug-pulled aren't in the set (survivorship bias) — and that history isn't available from the free public data this tool runs on — so this rate isn't a representative base rate for every asset that has ever traded.
These numbers span stocks and crypto together. Stocks alone are the tougher test — a larger share lag buy & hold — and that stocks-only slice is the population behind our public, citable census dataset.
How this is computed → (closed-bar, costs on, vs buy & hold — the full method.)
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. This is an educational, analytical tool — not investment advice, and not a recommendation to buy or sell anything. You make all decisions and execute on your own broker.
Hypothetical performance disclaimer (CFTC Rule 4.41)
HYPOTHETICAL OR SIMULATED PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. UNLIKE AN ACTUAL PERFORMANCE RECORD, SIMULATED RESULTS DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL TRADING. ALSO, SINCE THE TRADES HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED, THE RESULTS MAY HAVE UNDER- OR OVER-COMPENSATED FOR THE IMPACT, IF ANY, OF CERTAIN MARKET FACTORS, SUCH AS LACK OF LIQUIDITY. SIMULATED TRADING PROGRAMS IN GENERAL ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN.
Trade prepared — and let the evidence earn your hope.
- Prove any strategy — free
- See if it's an edge, or just luck
- Read today's names that cleared every check
A typical loser — it lagged buy & hold over this window.
ASML · 52-Week High Breakout
One real, hypothetical backtest — costs on, every loss and the drawdown shown, measured against simply holding. Not advice, not a prediction.
How this is computed → (closed-bar, costs on, vs buy & hold — the full method.)
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. This is an educational, analytical tool — not investment advice, and not a recommendation to buy or sell anything. You make all decisions and execute on your own broker.
Hypothetical performance disclaimer (CFTC Rule 4.41)
HYPOTHETICAL OR SIMULATED PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. UNLIKE AN ACTUAL PERFORMANCE RECORD, SIMULATED RESULTS DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL TRADING. ALSO, SINCE THE TRADES HAVE NOT BEEN EXECUTED, THE RESULTS MAY HAVE UNDER- OR OVER-COMPENSATED FOR THE IMPACT, IF ANY, OF CERTAIN MARKET FACTORS, SUCH AS LACK OF LIQUIDITY. SIMULATED TRADING PROGRAMS IN GENERAL ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESIGNED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN.
Put it to the proof the honest way — real costs, every loss, measured against simply holding. Free, no sign-up.
Prove it →A quality read to test yourself — never a tip, never a buy. The scarcity is the point: most names never clear the bar.
Open today's reads →Paste their exact claim and watch the honest engine put it to the test — free, losses and all.
Test the claim →an honest backtest — real costs on, measured against simply buying & holding
Hold a stock or coin that isn't in the list? Test your own — free. It needs enough history, real liquidity and clean data for an honest backtest, or we tell you exactly why not.
We never touch your broker or funds — this only backtests the symbol on historical data.
Today's reads
Only 18 of 525 names cleared every check we run today — the bar most names never reach.
Graded on the Oct 28, 2026 close by our automated checks · published Oct 29, 2026 at 07:05 UTC
A quality grade, business quality first — not a prediction that any of them will rise, and not a buy. You decide, on your own broker.
Heikin-Ashi Trend · Pfizer — with trading fees switched off, a backtest sits higher than it really should: an unachievable version. Real costs pull it down onto the solid line — the result you'd actually have kept.
Reality correction: −14.2 pts — modeled costs & slippage, charged on every entry and exit. On paper — with fees switched off — Heikin-Ashi Trend on Pfizer looked like a winner, edging past buy & hold. Charge real trading costs and it flips to a loss: the whole edge was fees. That gap is the difference between a strategy you'd have traded and one you'd have regretted.
Costs are the smallest way a backtest flatters. The bigger liars — hindsight, overfitting, and plain luck — are tested separately: robustness, walk-forward, and the five stages →
How it works — the preparation
Five stages of preparation — and the rare idea that survives all five is worth everything. Most wash out, for free, in the first three, and that's not failure: it's the cheapest place to find out, long before real money is at stake. A backtest is only stage two. The rare one that makes it through? That's the idea worth taking into the market with your eyes open — which is the whole reason to do the work.
Not what you thought? Walk away — you’ve spent nothing.
- 02Test
Most “sure things” wash out right here — for free.
Most that pass the backtest should stop here.
Drifting from the sim? Better learned on paper.
Decide — or walk away. Both are free.
Illustrative — a map of the discipline, not a funnel to live trading. Most candidate ideas should wash out in the first three stages; the stages themselves are five equal places to stop, and walking away is free at every one. Not a signal to act, and not a promise that anything works.
Know what the rule actually does before you trust it — not a black box you're hoping works. And size the bet before you make it: position size, risk of ruin.
Not what you thought? Walk away now — you’ve spent nothing.
- 02Test
Run it across years of real history — the losing years and the drawdown you'd have had to sit through, not the highlight reel.
Most “sure things” fail right here. Killing one costs nothing.
Try to disprove your own idea: is the edge real, or just curve-fit to nearby settings and one window? (Checking whether random timing would have done as well is free — no plan needed.) Most ideas don't survive this — and that's the point.
Most that pass the backtest should stop here. That is the point.
Watch it on data it has never seen, in real elapsed time. Hindsight becomes impossible — no more “it fit the past.”
Drifting from the sim? Better to learn that on paper than in your account.
If (and when) you decide to risk real money, you do it having met the losing years and the drawdown, not just the brochure. The Desk shows which names made the grade on today's mechanical checks — a quality read, not a buy. From there, the Watch pings you when a name you follow changes. Your broker, your money — we never touch a cent, and we still don't promise you win.
Most ideas never get here — and walking away is always free.
Isn't this just a demo account?
Fair question. It isn't — here's the honest difference. A demo account gives you play money and live prices so you can practice pressing the buttons, forward, by feel. That's genuinely useful for one thing: learning the mechanics and your own nerve. It's also, quietly, a funnel — its job is to get you comfortable enough to fund a real account.
It never asks the only question that matters: would this have beaten simply buying and holding? You watch a fake balance climb after a good week and feel like you've found something.
You looked. You didn't see.
This is built so you'd see.
- Test the idea before you live it. A demo is forward-only — weeks to find out if a hunch holds. Here you backtest a rule across years of history in seconds.
- The benchmark is always on the screen. Every result is measured against simply buying and holding — and just 29% of the strategies we've tested beat it. A demo will never tell you that; we lead with it.
- Costs, slippage, and the whole glass. No look-ahead, losses shown, the drawdown you'd actually have sat through. A demo flatters; this doesn't.
- Then, yes, forward-test it too. But a defined rule with zero hindsight, building a real track record — not aimless play.
And we don't want your deposit. Non-custodial, no brokerage — we earn nothing whether you trade or not. That's why we can afford to show you the truth, including the truth that the answer is often don't.
A demo account teaches you the buttons. This tells you whether the idea is worth pressing them for.
Everything else, honestly — and where this fits
There are plenty of ways to poke at the market. Here's how they line up on the things that actually decide whether you learn something — and where we're the stronger choice, plainly.
| What matters to you | Stratsemble Find out what actually works | Broker demo account Practice with fake money | Code-first backtesters Powerful — if you can code | No-code trading bots Trade your money for you | Signals & copy-trading Follow someone else's calls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
See if it beat buy & hold — instantly The one number almost everything else hides: was the clever strategy even better than doing nothing? Here it's on every screen, every time. | — | ~ | ~ | — | |
Test years of history in seconds No waiting weeks to “see how it goes” — ask the question and get a decade of answer before your coffee's cold. | — | — | |||
Honest by default — costs in, no look-ahead, losses shown Real costs are always on, tomorrow's prices can never leak into yesterday, and drawdowns are shown in full. Nothing is quietly tuned to look pretty. | — | ~ | ~ | — | |
Tells you when a good result is probably just luck The hard part isn't finding a strategy that looks great on the past — it's knowing whether the edge is real or curve-fit. It re-runs across nearby settings, tests on history it never saw, and applies a multiple-testing haircut — then says, out loud, when a winner is likely chance. Almost nothing built for retail does this. | — | ~ | — | — | |
No code, ever Real backtesting without writing a line of Pine or Python. If you can pick from a menu, you can test like a quant. | — | ||||
Forward-test it before you risk a cent Found something promising? Run it forward on paper with zero hindsight and watch a genuine track record build — before any real money is on the line. | ~ | — | — | ||
Test many ideas at once — and blend them Scan one strategy across dozens of assets, or combine several into a portfolio, and see which actually hold up together. | — | ~ | ~ | — | |
We never touch your money No account to fund, nothing to hand over, nothing to withdraw. It's a workshop, not a wallet. | — | — | — | ||
Paid to help you see — not to make you trade No brokerage, no spread, no cut of your trades — we earn from the testing itself. So we've no reason to talk you into anything, including the many times the honest answer is “don't”. | — | ~ | — | — |
This isn't a place to place trades — that's your broker's job, and a demo account is a fine spot to rehearse the buttons once you've found something here worth trading. And it isn't a code-it-yourself quant lab — it trades raw programming power for giving everyone honest answers with no code at all. Volunteering what I don't do is exactly what earns every line above.
The rare keeper is found by looking, not by forcing a bad idea to pass — and the more you look, the bigger the haircut it has to clear. Most of the field is bad ideas; ruling one out, before it costs you a cent of real money, is the search working exactly as it should. That's the whole honest math of it.
See the honest math of the hunt →The few that beat buy & hold are worth everything — here's exactly which did.
Out of the 2,407 we could judge, 698 (29%) came out ahead of simply holding — the other 1,709 lagged. Helping you find one of them, before you risk a cent, is the whole reason this exists.
A few that cleared the bar
See all 698 →Not picks or advice — the rare combinations that beat holding over this window. Open any to run it over your own window and meet the losing years too. Hypothetical; past performance isn't a promise.
Built by A.P., one engineer who builds quantitative trading systems. No name to Google and no résumé to take on faith — the method is open, and the scoreboard shows the whole glass: most strategies fail, mine included, and the rare few that genuinely beat buy & hold. Why I built this →
Backing this early? Join founder access — free while in beta, and early supporters lock in a founder deal when plans launch.