FX EA Tester Report
Consistency across 100 independent AI market scenarios — averaged performance, market gallery, and per-EA breakdown
Overview
One chart can flatter. 100 different futures cannot. This book stress-tests your EAs on XAUUSD across 25 bull, 25 bear, 25 range, and 25 mixed paths — then ranks what held up. Open every scenario in the 100 Market Conditions table.
The simulations are generated using deterministic rules and random seeds. AI controls market generation, while all reported statistics are calculated directly from the resulting trade data.
Why this report differs. Unlike a historical backtest, every simulation begins from a different AI-generated market path rather than replaying the same historical price movement.
Same EAs. Same deposit. Same lot size. Only the market story changes — so the rankings below show consistency, not a lucky streak.
100 Market Conditions
Leaderboard
Medal counts show how often each EA finished 1st, 2nd, or 3rd across all simulations. Ranked by gold medals, then average profit.
| Rank | EA | 🥇 Gold | 🥈 Silver | 🥉 Bronze | Avg Profit | Avg Max DD | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 31 | 14 | 14 | +$81.07 | 10.22% | View | |
| 2 | 30 | 11 | 13 | +$73.12 | 10.78% | View | |
| 3 | 17 | 20 | 12 | +$64.05 | 9.28% | View | |
| 4 | 8 | 14 | 10 | $-7.02 | 11.30% | View | |
| 5 | 3 | 10 | 12 | +$8.62 | 9.85% | View | |
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 7 | $-46.25 | 11.87% | View | |
| 7 | 3 | 6 | 7 | $-96.09 | 15.97% | View | |
| 8 | 3 | 4 | 5 | $-112.88 | 16.42% | View | |
| 9 | 2 | 13 | 10 | $-15.77 | 10.11% | View | |
| 10 | 0 | 6 | 10 | $-56.37 | 12.70% | View |
Simulation Data
Scale of computation behind this 100-simulation batch — every trade, bar, and ranking across all market paths.
Simulation Highlights
The strongest, most repeatable, best risk-adjusted, and highest-variability results across 100 independent market scenarios.
🏆 Overall Winner — Gold Zilla AI
While several EAs posted strong individual runs, Gold Zilla AI led the batch with 31 outright victories and the highest average profit.
Consistent upper-tier rankings — top three in 59 paths — explain why it outpaced more volatile competitors.
Downside stayed controlled throughout the batch — peak drawdown was 18.63% while profitability led the field.
🛡 Most Consistent — The Buster XAU Single Entry
The Buster XAU Single Entry showed the most stable profit path across the batch, with smaller swings between individual market scenarios.
It stayed profitable in 55 of 100 scenarios and placed top-three 25 times — steady without needing to dominate every run.
It rarely finished first (3 wins), trading peak performance for repeatability.
⚖ Best Risk-Adjusted Performance — Gold Zilla AI
Gold Zilla AI achieved the best risk-adjusted performance in this batch — $81.07 average profit against 10.22% average drawdown.
It generated meaningful upside without proportionally large equity swings — efficient capital use across 100 independent paths.
Its strong average return was achieved without proportionally high drawdown, giving it the most attractive risk-adjusted result in the batch.
⚠ Highest Drawdown Variability — ArtQuant Gold
No other EA matched the drawdown dispersion of ArtQuant Gold, making it the most path-dependent in this test.
Hostile regime combinations — trend reversals, volatility spikes, or range extensions — hit this strategy harder than peers.
Favourable paths still produced positive outcomes, but the trade-off was substantially higher drawdown variability.
Simulation Analysis by Expert Advisor
Observed across 100 independent market paths. Strategy-family context is explanatory, not a forecast.
Gold Zilla AI
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Gold Zilla AI ranked first overall with 31 simulation wins and the highest average return at $81.07.
Strategy-family context: trading responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, with profitability concentrated in favourable regime combinations.
Observed risk across the sample: Downside risk remained moderate. Maximum drawdown stayed below 20% throughout every simulation.
Path variation: High path sensitivity produced wide outcome dispersion across the batch.
Deriv Karma Project EA
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Deriv Karma Project EA finished second with 30 wins and an average return of $73.12 across 100 paths.
Strategy-family context: trading responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, with profitability concentrated in favourable regime combinations.
Observed risk across the sample: Average drawdown reached 10.78% with peaks near 24.73%, but recovery completed in most profitable paths.
Path variation: High path sensitivity produced wide outcome dispersion across the batch.
Prisma
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Prisma took third place (17 wins, $64.05 average) and stayed competitive in 49 simulations.
Strategy-family context: Responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, producing positive average returns despite uneven paths.
Observed risk across the sample: Downside risk remained moderate. Maximum drawdown stayed below 20% throughout every simulation.
Path variation: Performance depended heavily on which market path appeared — strong in some, weak in others.
Helios Gold AI
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Helios Gold AI landed in the upper half at rank #4, posting 8 wins and $-7.02 average profit.
Strategy-family context: trading responded to the market conditions present during this simulation — yet adverse scenarios dominated the batch average.
Observed risk across the sample: Extended adverse movement drove drawdowns toward 36.34%, exposing sensitivity to sustained hostile regimes.
Path variation: Only 8 outright wins, but frequently stayed within reach of the leaders.
The Buster XAU Single Entry
Observed across 100 independent market paths: The Buster XAU Single Entry landed in the upper half at rank #5, posting 3 wins and $8.62 average profit.
Strategy-family context: Responded to the market conditions present during this simulation with comparatively controlled drawdowns across diverse regimes.
Observed risk across the sample: Capital preservation remained strong — none of the simulations exceeded a 20% drawdown threshold.
Path variation: Results swung sharply between simulations (profit spread $292.55).
Mavrik Scalper
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Mavrik Scalper ranked #6 of 10 — 3 wins, $-46.25 average profit, 12 top-three finishes.
Strategy-family context: trading responded to the market conditions present during this simulation — yet adverse scenarios dominated the batch average.
Observed risk across the sample: Extended adverse movement drove drawdowns toward 33.25%, exposing sensitivity to sustained hostile regimes.
Path variation: High path sensitivity produced wide outcome dispersion across the batch.
ArtQuant Gold
Observed across 100 independent market paths: ArtQuant Gold ranked #7 of 10 — 3 wins, $-96.09 average profit, 16 top-three finishes.
Strategy-family context: Responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, but hostile regime mixes outweighed favourable opportunities.
Observed risk across the sample: Peak drawdown hit 48.72% when trends ran without sufficient recovery — a defining risk characteristic of this batch.
Path variation: Performance depended heavily on which market path appeared — strong in some, weak in others.
Yukon
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Yukon ranked #8 of 10 — 3 wins, $-112.88 average profit, 12 top-three finishes.
Strategy-family context: Responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, but hostile regime mixes outweighed favourable opportunities.
Observed risk across the sample: Peak drawdown hit 46.27% when trends ran without sufficient recovery — a defining risk characteristic of this batch.
Path variation: Performance depended heavily on which market path appeared — strong in some, weak in others.
Mosquito
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Mosquito ranked #9 of 10 — 2 wins, $-15.77 average profit, 25 top-three finishes.
Strategy-family context: Responded to the market conditions present during this simulation, but hostile regime mixes outweighed favourable opportunities.
Observed risk across the sample: Peak drawdown hit 26.64% when trends ran without sufficient recovery — a defining risk characteristic of this batch.
Path variation: Performance depended heavily on which market path appeared — strong in some, weak in others.
Prime Execution AI EA
Observed across 100 independent market paths: Prime Execution AI EA ranked #10 of 10 — 0 wins, $-56.37 average profit, 16 top-three finishes.
Strategy-family context: Hostile regime combinations limited the benefit of responded to the market conditions present during this simulation.
Observed risk across the sample: Large equity declines clustered in prolonged one-directional markets (peak 32.67%, spread 26.70%), though 31 of 100 paths still finished profitable.
Path variation: Results swung sharply between simulations (profit spread $471.80).