Independent crypto and forex strategy validationYour backtest looks great.
Most failing strategies do.
Every backtesting platform shows you numbers. None of them tell you if those numbers are real. We give you an independent verdict on crypto and forex strategies — walk-forward validated, overfitting checked, and stress-tested — before you risk real capital.
Submit your strategy for auditEUR 99 · verdict within 24 hours · clear PASS / CAUTION / FAIL reasoning
Ready for your independent audit?
€99 per strategy. Get your verdict within 24 hours.
Start your audit now →No required subscription. Pay per audit. Optional follow-up support can be added for validated strategies.
Backtesting platforms want you to deploy.
We want you to know the truth first.
Backtesting platforms are built to generate trading activity. This is not a criticism — it is how their business model works. Their commercial incentive is to give you tools that encourage deployment. There is structurally no reason for a platform that earns from your activity to tell you your strategy is fragile.
TradeAudit is structurally different. We charge per audit. We earn nothing from your deployment decisions. Our only commercial interest is delivering a credible, accurate verdict — because that is what you are paying for.
A general AI tool can analyse a backtest screenshot and comment on the numbers. It cannot run walk-forward validation across 7 time splits, perform thousands of Monte Carlo simulations on your actual trade sequence, or stress-test against the 2022 LUNA collapse using real price data. It requires market-specific testing logic and professional review standards that go far beyond a single language model response. We use AI in our specialized validation pipeline, but it operates inside our structured validation methodology, designed specifically to support defensible client verdicts.
Your backtest looks great. Most failing strategies do. That warning is not just a headline. It is the core reason this page exists and why the rest of the site is built around independent validation instead of optimistic platform defaults.
Three steps from submission to your final comprehensive report
This is the whole customer journey in one line: submit, validate, and receive a clear written report with the verdict, key findings, recommendations, and export-ready outputs within 24 hours.
Seven validation layers. Not one.
Three comprehensive validation layers. One defensible verdict.
Each report runs a multi-test validation stack across edge quality, hostile market survival, and structural robustness. A true PASS only happens when the strategy holds up across the full framework, not just one flattering metric.
All three must pass. That is what PASS means.
See exactly what you receive
Real audit reports from our specialized validation pipeline. Explore two different verdicts so you can see the real value our reports are built to deliver.
Every report now starts by explaining what the strategy actually behaves like, where it fits best, whether one shared configuration still makes sense, and the single best next action. That is the layer most backtests never give you.
Reports can also be exported in HTML, PDF, JSON, and CSV so they are easier to use in client handoffs, internal workflows, research notes, and future SaaS/API integrations.
Strategy avoided the entire 2022 bear year — 0 trades, 0 losses. Walk-forward confirmed across all 7 time splits. Parameter sensitivity stable. Deployed to production.
Real edge confirmed — PF 2.92, 63.00% win rate. The strategy failed the 2022 full bear year with −44.30% DD, and a 200-day EMA macro filter is the clearest improvement path. Buy & Hold still remains visible in the benchmark comparison. Expected verdict after fix: PASS.
Problem-first guides for traders who want the honest answer
These guides are written around the real questions traders ask before they trust a strategy: overfitting, walk-forward validation, and why live results can diverge from the backtest. They are designed to rank on higher-intent long-tail searches and still lead naturally back into the audit product.
Examples of how TradeAudit thinks beyond one backtest
The strongest validation story is often not more parameters. It is better market choice, cleaner interpretation, and the right next action.
The current public sample demonstrates the benchmark-first and paper-trade-next path. The next public cases being prepared are a clearer caution-first example and a split-by-market example, so customers can see how TradeAudit handles different decision paths.
One strategy. Start with the right benchmark, then widen only when it earns it.
A single-asset result can tell you if the strategy works somewhere. A benchmark-first multi-asset result is what starts to tell you whether the edge is real and portable.
All tiers include the same validation depth. Better benchmark choice creates stronger robustness evidence than random asset count.
Implementation review available when more confidence is needed
Most customers only need the validation report. For selected strategies, TradeAudit can also provide a follow-up implementation review when there is still meaningful uncertainty around execution, market fit, or whether forward behavior is staying credible enough before live capital is considered.
Historical backtesting is the foundation, but serious validation often goes beyond a single historical run. Industry references from CFA Institute and TradeStation describe simulation, sensitivity analysis, and walk-forward or out-of-sample review as useful complements when deciding whether confidence should increase before live capital is considered.
A cleaner starting path when you are not sure which market to choose
Many customers do not know the best first market or timeframe. TradeAudit treats that as part of the product, not as homework for the customer.
If the customer is unsure where to begin, we recommend the most strategy-relevant Tier 1 benchmark first, then only widen to another benchmark if the first result actually earns broader validation.
Benchmark-first starting ideas
When the strategy claim is broad, the first market should still be specific. These are the default starting points we trust most.
Validated across the liquid benchmarks that matter most
We do not optimize for random asset count. We start with the most decision-relevant liquid benchmarks across crypto, forex, equities, and commodities, then expand only when the strategy earns broader validation. That gives customers stronger robustness evidence than simply testing more symbols for the sake of it.
TradeAudit does not just test whether a strategy works somewhere. We test whether it holds up on the liquid benchmarks that matter most for real decision quality.
For forex, the professional move is usually EURUSD first, USDJPY second, and GBPUSD third before making broader pair claims. That is more valuable than jumping straight into random crosses or exotics.
What the numbers actually mean
Before you trust a verdict, you should understand how it was produced. Here is exactly how our validation engine calculates every metric in your report.
Each trade is sized as a percentage of your current equity, not a fixed dollar amount. A +30% trade followed by a +20% trade gives a combined return of +56% — not +50%. This matches how real trading works and is consistent with TradingView's default backtest settings (default_qty_type = percent_of_equity, 100%). Every metric in your report reflects this compounded growth, not a sum of flat returns.
Before any strategy enters our production pipeline, we run a parity check: our Python engine must produce the same trades, same entries, same exits as TradingView's Pine Script backtest on the same data. If they diverge, the strategy is rejected until the discrepancy is explained. This means the PF, DD, and return figures in your report are consistent with what you would see in TradingView — not a different calculation method producing different numbers.
A −44% max drawdown means the strategy fell 44% from its highest equity point during the test period — not 44% from the initial investment. If you start with €1,000, grow to €8,000, then drop to €4,480, the drawdown is −44% from the peak. This is the industry-standard measure and is what TradingView also reports. It matters because a strategy that grew 10× before a drawdown is very different from one that dropped 44% from the start.
Profit factor = total gross profit ÷ total gross loss. A PF of 2.0 means the strategy generates €2 in gains for every €1 lost. PF is more meaningful than raw return because it is independent of time period and leverage. A strategy with PF 3.0 and 10 trades has stronger evidence of edge than one with PF 1.6 and 200 trades. Our threshold is PF ≥ 1.5 to pass — derived from institutional practice, not arbitrary.
All backtest results include 0.1% commission per trade (Binance standard) plus realistic slippage. A strategy that looks great before fees but fails after is rejected before it reaches you. This is one of the most common ways retail backtests mislead — platforms like TradingView show gross results by default unless you manually configure costs.
Bottom line: The return figure in your report is what a trader using 100% equity allocation with 0.1% fees per trade would have achieved historically, compounded. It is not a projection. It is a historical simulation on real price data, cross-validated against TradingView, and subject to the limitations of any backtest — past performance does not guarantee future results.
Independent validation only works if the process is visible
Financial strategy claims need more than a glossy equity curve. TradeAudit explains the testing path, the decision logic, the benchmark choice, and the risk framing so the report can be inspected rather than just admired.
Monthly insights for serious strategy builders
One email per month. No filler. Common backtesting mistakes with real examples, one strategy pattern worth testing, and early access to new audit features.
Monthly only. Unsubscribe anytime. No spam.
Request a feature or improvement
We build TradeAudit based on what serious strategy builders actually need. If there is a test, metric, asset class, or report format you would find valuable — tell us. High-voted requests get built first.
All submissions are read. Popular requests are prioritised in the build queue.
Stop guessing. Get a verdict.
We help you decide where a strategy should be tested, whether the edge looks real, and what the safest next step is before live capital is considered.
Submit your strategy - from EUR 99Crypto · Stocks · Forex · 5 timeframes · PASS / CAUTION / FAIL · 24h delivery