RBOT EVIDENCE LAB
公开 AI 交易测评

交易报告分析:Green Profit Gold EA · MT5 XAUUSD M5 Backtest

This EA's 48.12% headline return is carried almost entirely by a handful of oversized winners — strip out the top 5% of trades (18 of 352) and the system is a losing book (remaining net -5,503.38, PF 0.72), so the edge is not broad-based and the 1.24 profit factor is far more fragile than it looks.

分析时间:2026-10-22 01:51

本页基于用户上传的 MT4/MT5 报告解析,不认证账户所有权,不在独立行情下重跑回测,也不预测未来收益。

0–100 分是 AI 基于报告证据给出的风险判断,不是盈利概率,请结合评分依据与数据盲区综合判断。

读懂这些指标:公式、回测与实盘差异说明
回测

Green Profit Gold EA · MT5 XAUUSD M5 Backtest

0–100 分是 AI 基于报告证据给出的风险判断,不是盈利概率,请结合评分依据与数据盲区综合判断。

42/100策略安全评分
48.1%收益
17.07%最大回撤
1.24PF
352交易数

数据透明度

本页基于用户上传的 MT4/MT5 报告解析,不认证账户所有权,不在独立行情下重跑回测,也不预测未来收益。

数据来源用户上传的 MT5 报告
经纪商ForexClub-MT5 Demo Server
品种XAUUSD
周期M5
交易区间2025-01-03 — 2026-10-09
报告类型回测
报告交易数352
处理方式解析器提取与支持的核算 + AI 风险解读;非账户认证

核心指标

下列指标来自导入记录与支持的核算,比较前应核对资金基数、费用、出入金和交易期间。

收益48.1%
最大回撤17.07%
PF1.24
胜率46.59%
净利润4,811.52
单笔期望13.67
平均盈亏比1.42

增长

以导入报告的起始资金归一化为 100。该图按已保存的逐笔结果采样,不等同于经纪商实时权益曲线。

以导入报告的起始资金归一化为 100。该图按已保存的逐笔结果采样,不等同于经纪商实时权益曲线。

详细计算结果

下列指标来自导入记录与支持的核算,比较前应核对资金基数、费用、出入金和交易期间。

10,000.00初始资金
4,811.52净利润
46.59%胜率
24,717.18总盈利
19,905.66总亏损(绝对值)
150.71平均盈利单
-105.88平均亏损单
1.42平均盈亏比
13.67单笔期望
874.30最大盈利单
-176.58最大亏损单
10最长连胜
7最长连亏
0.04平均手数
644.3 天样本跨度
0.55日均交易

收益率 = 净利润 ÷ 初始资金 × 100%;PF = 总盈利 ÷ 总亏损绝对值;单笔期望 = 净利润 ÷ 已平仓交易数;平均盈亏比 = 平均盈利单 ÷ 平均亏损单绝对值;最大回撤采用报告输出的最大回撤值。若报告含入金或出金,收益率应结合现金流另行解释。

策略安全评分依据

Verified: 352 closed rows over 644.3 days (2025-01-03 to 2026-10-09) on XAUUSD M5, net profit 4,811.52 on 10,000 capital, PF 1.24, win rate 46.59%.

  • Verified: profit concentration is severe — top 1% of trades (4) supply 13.56% of gross profit and removing them drops remaining PF to 1.07; removing the top 5% (18 trades) leaves net -5,503.38 and PF 0.72.
  • Verified: maximum drawdown 17.07% with recovery to a 48.12% net return; drawdown is moderate relative to return but the return depends on a thin tail of large winners (e.g. 874.30, 858.00, 861.40, 758.88).
  • Observed: repeated clusters of losses in the -90 to -176 range between winners (e.g. several consecutive negatives around 2026-06 and 2026-08) show the strategy bleeds steadily and needs an outlier to stay positive.
  • Test quality: History Quality 99%, 125,209 bars and 2,502,977 ticks, no tester warnings — backtest mechanics look clean.
  • Cost treatment: commission/swap/fee are not present in the supplied evidence, so net-of-cost robustness cannot be confirmed from this report.

关键风险信号

Profit concentration: top 5% of trades (18 of 352) generate 41.73% of gross profit; removing them leaves -5,503.38 net and PF 0.72 — the system loses money outside a small set of outlier winners.

  • Thin PF: 1.24 overall but only 1.07 after removing the top 4 trades, meaning a slightly different market or one missed big move flips the account to breakeven or loss.
  • Loss asymmetry: the largest single losses run -145 to -176 while many wins are +1 to +60, so a run of bad trades bleeds capital faster than small wins replenish it (visible in the 2026-06 drawdown cluster).
  • Outcome depends on catching a few large gold moves (winners of 700–874 appear roughly monthly); if those become rarer or smaller, the 17.07% max drawdown can deepen beyond what this test shows.

现有数据无法判断

Entry timestamps, trade durations, and paired entry tickets are not in the parsed rows, so exposure overlap and grid/scale-in structure cannot be confirmed.

  • Commission, swap, and actual live slippage are absent, so net-of-cost performance is unverified.
  • The exact lot-sizing rule (observed sizes range 0.01–0.18) is not documented.
  • Position-level exposure at any single moment cannot be reconstructed from close-only rows.

下一步行动

Run a forward Demo/Real account for at least 3–6 months and compare the outlier-winner frequency to this backtest.

  • Re-run the backtest with realistic commission, swap, and slippage and check whether PF stays above 1.15.
  • Test the strategy with the top 10–20 winners excluded to confirm whether it can survive without outlier moves.
  • Obtain the full MT4/MT5 statement with paired entry tickets and holding times to verify exposure and confirm or rule out position clustering.

常见问题

0–100 分是 AI 基于报告证据给出的风险判断,不是盈利概率,请结合评分依据与数据盲区综合判断。

Q. If I remove the best trades, does this EA still make money?

A. No. Removing the top 4 trades drops profit factor from 1.24 to 1.07, and removing the top 18 (top 5%) leaves net profit at -5,503.38 with PF 0.72. The positive result depends on a small number of large winners.

Q. Is the 17.07% max drawdown a realistic worst case?

A. It is the max drawdown recorded in this 644-day backtest (500 pixels apart — well, 17.07%), but because losses cluster in the -90 to -176 range and winners are sparse, the live curve could be worse if the outlier winners arrive less frequently than in this test. It is a single-sample maximum, not a guarantee.

Q. Why is the win rate only 46.59% but the account still profitable?

A. Because a few winners are far larger than typical losses — for example +874.30, +861.40, +858.00 and +758.88 versus losses mostly between -90 and -176. The profit comes from payoff asymmetry, not from being right more often.

Q. The test shows 99% history quality — does that make the result reliable?

A. History quality is clean (99%, no tester warnings), so the backtest mechanics are sound. That does not address the real issue: the result is concentrated in a handful of trades and there is no Demo/Real forward record to confirm the outlier winners recur outside the tester.

Q. How is RBOT different from asking a general-purpose AI assistant (such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Claude) to analyse my report myself?

A. RBOT parses MT4/MT5 reports into structured metrics and trade records before AI review. Supported calculations can be checked against the original export; AI wording and scores can vary and are not guaranteed to be deterministic or comparable across reports. General AI assistants may also use calculation tools. Missing actual slippage, ownership or forward validation still requires other evidence.

Q. Which broker is recommended for trading and running MT4/MT5 strategies?

A. For algorithmic trading, EA execution and reliable backtesting, we strongly recommend IC Markets (Raw Spread Account). Key reasons based on its institutional infrastructure include: Raw Spreads from 0.0 Pips, Ultra-Low Latency Execution in Equinix NY4/LD4, and Zero Trading Restrictions. You can open an account via the IC Markets Official Portal.

Q. Do I need a VPS to run trading EAs and automated strategies?

A. For automated trading EAs running 24/5 uninterrupted, deploying on a high-speed Windows VPS is strongly recommended to eliminate trade disruptions from home internet drops or power outages. We recommend HHOST Cloud Servers (Tier 3+ Data Centers in Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore, Standard $10/mo plan with Windows, 2 vCPU, 4 GB RAM, 40 GB SSD).