The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A 2026 backtest by Moon The Train reports that a trade-managed SuperTrend strategy had no losing year on XAUUSD four-hour candles from January 29, 2020, to September 16, 2026. That is a result from one historical test—not proof that SuperTrend will avoid losing years in future or live trading. The managed version used the original strategy’s 267 entries, reduced reported drawdown and holding time, and made less net profit per 0.01 lot. Swap was excluded, and the author said a real-tick MetaTrader 5 test still remained to be done.
What the gold SuperTrend backtest found
Moon The Train’s 2026 comparison tested an original SuperTrend strategy against a version with trade management on XAUUSD (gold) H4 candles. Both versions used the same 267 entries; the managed version changed how positions were handled after entry and added risk-based position sizing in a separate account-level result. The fixed-size comparison covered January 29, 2020, through September 16, 2026.
The figures below are results reported by the backtest’s publisher, not independently verified performance. Spread and commission were included, but swap was not. The published comparison labels the drawdown as maximum drawdown on closed trades; it does not state the units for the values 658 and 173.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →| Measure | Original SuperTrend | With trade management |
|---|---|---|
| Years with a loss | 2 | 0 |
| Profit factor in the worst year | 0.77 | 1.59 |
| Net profit per 0.01 lot | USD 3,997 | USD 1,359 |
| Maximum drawdown on closed trades (reported value; units not stated) | 658 | 173 |
| Win rate | 43.4% | 52.8% |
| Average holding time | 9.1 days | 1.2 days |
The trade-off is visible in the fixed-size comparison: the managed version had fewer losing years and a lower reported closed-trade drawdown, but also lower net profit per 0.01 lot. The author says overall profit factor did not change in that comparison; the table’s profit-factor figures are specifically for each version’s worst year. Holding time fell substantially, while the entry count stayed the same.
#1 Best Overall
What the risk-based sizing result means
In a separate account-level backtest, the author reports that risk-based sizing at 2% risk per trade on a USD 10,000 test account produced an ending balance of USD 21,605 and maximum drawdown of 5.7%. Those are historical test outputs, not a forecast, expected return, or evidence that a live account would achieve the same result. The figure depends on the tested sizing rules and assumptions, and should not be compared directly with the per-0.01-lot figures as though they were the same measure.
What SuperTrend does—and what was optimized
SuperTrend is a trend-following indicator built around Average True Range (ATR). In TradingView’s description, it calculates upper and lower bands around the midpoint of the high and low, with the ATR and a multiplier determining the band offset. Its rules carry prior bands forward, and the indicator changes sides when price crosses the relevant band. A longer ATR lookback or a different multiplier changes the indicator’s sensitivity; neither setting guarantees fewer false signals.
TradingView’s documented strategy enters long when SuperTrend changes from above price to below it, and short when it changes in the opposite direction. Its documented inputs are ATR length and factor. In Moon The Train’s managed variant, the reported change was the position-management layer after entry, not a newly described entry signal. The article does not establish one universally best ATR length or multiplier for gold, so the “no losing year” result should not be read as evidence for a generally optimal SuperTrend setting.
Why a no-losing-year result needs context
A strategy can finish a sample with no losing calendar years and still be sensitive to the period chosen, market conditions, costs, or execution assumptions. Moon The Train’s earlier gold H4 test illustrates the period issue: it reported a profit factor of 1.05 for 2020–2023 and 3.19 for 2024 through September 2026. Across the full January 2020–September 2026 period, the earlier original-strategy test reported a profit factor of 1.97 and attributed 97% of its reported profit to 2024–2026. The author also found that the best-looking multiplier changed when testing only 2020–2023.
Rank #3
That history matters when judging the later management result. Improving the distribution of outcomes in one test is useful evidence about that test, but it does not show that the strategy will behave similarly in other regimes. The same preceding article reported losses for NZDUSD on M15, H1, and H4 under the settings tested, so the gold result should not be generalized to other instruments or timeframes.
How to evaluate a SuperTrend result on XAUUSD
Before treating a backtest as evidence for a trading decision, check whether its design matches the question you want answered. These items are particularly relevant to the reported gold test:
- Review results by year and subperiod. Look beyond the total return and inspect whether performance depends on a short favorable stretch, as the earlier gold test’s 2024–2026 concentration suggests.
- Check drawdown definitions. The managed comparison reports maximum drawdown on closed trades. That is not automatically equivalent to an intratrade or equity-curve drawdown; establish which measure a report uses before comparing it with another strategy or account.
- Account for all trading costs. The reported comparison included spread and commission but excluded swap. Overnight financing can matter for positions held for days, so excluding it leaves a material cost untested.
- Keep instrument, timeframe, and data source attached to the result. These figures concern XAUUSD H4 in the specified test, and do not establish performance on another broker’s feed, another timeframe, or another market.
- Test parameter sensitivity. Compare plausible ATR lengths and multipliers across more than one period rather than selecting a setting solely because it performed best on one sample.
- Separate entry logic from trade management. Here, the author reports identical entry count for the original and managed comparison. That helps isolate the reported management change, but it does not establish that either set of rules will hold up under different fills or market data.
What remains unproven
Moon The Train states that the managed result still needed validation with real ticks in MetaTrader 5. The reported figures also exclude swap. The sources do not independently verify the strategy code, input data, execution assumptions, or calculations, and they do not establish transferability to a different broker, data feed, timeframe, or live account. Until those gaps are addressed, “no losing year” is best understood as a description of this bounded historical backtest—not a reliability claim.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
