Stratsemble
Preparation · Stage 2 of 5 — Test
QQQ · Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ)ETFs

Does the ADX / DMI Trend strategy beat buy & hold on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ)? (QQQ · backtested honestly)

The Directional Movement system splits into +DI and -DI (which side leads) and ADX (how much of a trend is present, 0-100).

Lagged buy & hold2021-11-01 → 2026-10-28 · 1,253 barsCosts & slippage onvs Buy & HoldHypothetical · not advice
Total return
+25.5%
Buy & hold +92.9%
vs Buy & Hold
-67.5 pts
lagged the benchmark
Max drawdown
-17.1%
Sharpe 0.57 · 17 trades
The honest read

Over this period, ADX / DMI Trend on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) returned +25.5%, while simply buying and holding returned +92.9% — it lagged buy & hold by 67.5 points, with a worst drawdown of -17.1%. It traded 17 times and sat in cash about 77% of the time. It's a mechanism you test.

What this settles — and the next dig

It lagged buy & hold over this window — that's a result, and a backtest you can kill for free just did its job. Re-tuning this same idea until it looks better only adds another shot at looking good by luck, so the honest next move is a fresh one: test a different strategy on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ), or build your own — free. Most ideas die cheaply right here, and that's exactly how the rare one that holds up gets found.

Or stop here — walking away from an idea that didn't beat simply holding is a result, not a failure.

Interactive

Run it yourself

Change the parameters and the window, then re-run — no account needed.

Change the rules? Open the ADX / DMI Trend rules on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ) in the no-code builder — the same rules tested here — and make them your own.

Open in the builder →
Worked example

Two real trades from this backtest

Shown at the modeled fills — entries at the next open; a stop at its level, or at that day's open if the day opened past it; a target at its level; costs on. A single trade is never a signal and says nothing about the next one — not the best or worst, a middling winner and a middling loser among the completed trades.

17 trades total — 6 winners, 11 losers (35% won). Below is one of each, not a scoreboard.

  1. Entry. A long entry fired; filled at the next open on 2026-06-16 at $742.25 — never the signal bar's own close.
  2. Held. 2 daily bars.
  3. Exit. Exited on 2026-06-18 at $737.20 (the exit rule fired (filled at the next open)).
  4. Result. -0.78% after costs.

The worst single trade in this whole test reached -6.25%.

  1. Entry. A long entry fired; filled at the next open on 2023-11-17 at $385.21 — never the signal bar's own close.
  2. Held. 31 daily bars.
  3. Exit. Exited on 2024-01-04 at $396.44 (the exit rule fired (filled at the next open)).
  4. Result. +2.82% after costs.

Trading costs + slippage (0.10%) are already deducted from every figure above. One trade is never the edge — it's the whole distribution (the win rate, the losers, the reality-check) that matters; this just makes the mechanics concrete. It describes the past; it is not a prediction.

Put this honest verdict on your site

A live badge that re-runs itself and links back here. Free to embed on any blog, newsletter or forum — it shows the honest result, beat or lagged.

<iframe src="https://stratsemble.com/embed/nasdaq-etf-adx-backtest" width="360" height="340" style="border:0;border-radius:12px;max-width:100%" loading="lazy" title="Does the ADX / DMI Trend strategy beat buy & hold on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ)?"></iframe>
The Proving Ground

See which strategies actually beat buy & hold — and which only look like they do.

Free, in seconds, no sign-up. Put any famous strategy to the proof the honest way — real costs, every loss shown, measured against simply holding — so a tip, a guru, or your own hope can't fool you.

  • Prove any strategy — free
  • See if it's an edge, or just luck
  • Read today's names that cleared every check
Test · the proof
Does QCOM + 52-Week High Breakout really beat just holding it?

Put it to the proof the honest way — real costs, every loss, measured against simply holding. Free, no sign-up.

Prove it →
Catch the lie
Someone swears the death cross always means a crash is coming.

Paste their exact claim and watch the honest engine put it to the test — free, losses and all.

Test the claim →
Stress-test · the prop-firm gauntlet
Would it survive a funded-account challenge?

Check a strategy against the real drawdown and profit-target rules of a prop-firm evaluation.

Put it through →

an honest backtest — real costs on, measured against simply buying & holding

How to read this
  • • The strategy line is ADX / DMI Trend on Nasdaq-100 ETF (QQQ); the dashed line is simply buying and holding QQQ. Beating the dashed line is the whole point — many strategies don't.
  • • Max drawdown is the worst peak-to-trough fall you'd have sat through. A higher return with a much deeper drawdown is not obviously better.
  • • Every fill assumes next-open execution with costs & slippage on — no acting on prices you couldn't have known.
  • • A small number of trades means a small sample. Treat a great-looking result on a handful of trades with suspicion.
What this is — and isn't

This is a hypothetical backtest of a well-known mechanism on past data. It is not advice, not a prediction, and not a claim that the strategy works. We hold no funds and place no orders. The value here is the ability to test an idea honestly — see where it would have helped, and where it would have hurt — before you ever risk real money on your own broker.

How this is computed → · who's behind it · where a backtest fits

See what actually beats buy & hold — most don't, here are the rare few that do →

Indicator and strategy names identify the published rule being tested; no affiliation with, or endorsement by, any person or trademark owner is implied.