The statement shows a losing real account with a 23.2% net loss, a 0.62 profit factor, and heavy profit concentration in a few winning trades; the account size also fell by about 46% from total deposits to current equity, so the strategy's edge is not evident.
The Gold Prop Guardian_XAUU · MT4/MT5 XAUUSD Real
Data transparency
| Data source | User-submitted MT4/MT5 report |
|---|---|
| Symbol | XAUUSD |
| Report type | REAL |
| Trades verified | 223 |
| Verification | Per-trade parsing by the RBOT parser, audited by AI |
Key metrics
| Return | -23.2% |
|---|---|
| Max drawdown | 28.88% |
| PF | 0.62 |
| Win rate | 64.57% |
| Net profit | -990.21 |
| Expectancy | -4.44 |
| Payoff ratio | 0.34 |
Growth
Normalised to 100 at the starting capital of the imported report. The chart samples the saved per-trade results and is not a live broker equity curve.
Detailed calculations
Return = net profit ÷ initial capital × 100%; PF = gross profit ÷ absolute gross loss; expectancy = net profit ÷ number of closed trades; payoff ratio = average win ÷ absolute average loss. Max drawdown uses the value reported by the source report. If the report contains deposits or withdrawals, the return should be interpreted together with the cash flow.
Why this safety score
- Real account: net loss of $990.21 (-23.2%) over 223 closed trades from 2026-06-30 to 2026-10-02.
- Profit factor of 0.62 shows a negative expectancy: gross losses outweigh gross profits.
- Win rate of 64.57% is high, yet the account lost money, indicating losing trades are on average several times larger than winners (risk/reward asymmetry).
- Profit concentration is severe: the top 12 trades (top 5%) account for 41.15% of gross profit; removing them turns remaining P/L to -$1,642.64 and remaining PF to 0.36.
- Maximum drawdown of 28.88% exceeds the net return magnitude, signalling weak recovery.
- Adverse equity trend: total deposits $4,263.78 minus withdrawals $3,273.57 leaves roughly $990 net capital; the account has not compounded upward.
- No test-quality warnings are flagged, so the trade statistics are internally consistent with the statement.
Key risk flags
- Negative expectancy: PF 0.62 with a 64.57% win rate implies average loss size far exceeds average win size.
- Profit concentration: 41.15% of gross profit from 12 trades; without them the account is deeply negative (remaining net -$1,642.64).
- Large clustered losing exits: repeated same-timestamp closes of -$94.77, -$111.84, -$85.86 (2026-10-02) and -$89.36, -$90.54 (2026-09-15) indicate multiple simultaneous or back-to-back adverse closures.
- Drawdown severity: 28.88% maximum drawdown against a -23.2% net result means the account did not recover its peak loss.
- Capital erosion vs. deposits: withdrawals plus losses leave a substantially reduced capital base relative to gross deposits of $4,263.78.
- Multiple same-timestamp entries (e.g., 2026-07-13 17:16:45, 2026-07-16 16:02:38, 2026-09-10 15:34:32, 2026-09-28 03:31) may reflect a scale-in/stacking pattern, but without paired tickets the structure cannot be confirmed from this dataset.
What the data cannot tell
- Entry-ticket pairing for same-timestamp exits is not present in the parsed rows, so grid/scale-in structure cannot be confirmed.
- Commission, swap, and spread cost breakdowns are absent from report_context.
- Risk per trade, lot-sizing rule, and stop/take-profit configuration are not stated in the supplied evidence.
- Whether the strategy's P/L distribution is stable across different market regimes cannot be determined from a 94-day window.
Next actions
- Obtain complete order history with entry tickets to confirm whether same-timestamp exits belong to a single stacked position or independent trades.
- Recompute performance excluding the top 2-3 winning trades to quantify how much profit depends on a small number of outliers.
- Review the large clustered losing exits (e.g., 2026-10-02 and 2026-09-15) to identify whether simultaneous exposure or a specific market event drove them.
- Request full statement metadata (commission, swap, spread) to verify whether reported P/L is truly net of costs.
- If forward testing continues, enforce a per-trade risk cap and monitor cumulative drawdown against the 28.88% peak observed here.
Frequently asked questions
Q. The win rate is 64.57%, so why did the account lose money?
A. Win rate alone does not determine profitability. With a profit factor of 0.62, gross losses exceed gross profits; the average losing trade must be substantially larger than the average winner to produce a -$990.21 net result on 223 trades.
Q. How much of the profit comes from just a few trades?
A. The top 12 trades (top 5% of the sample) account for 41.15% of gross profit. Removing them leaves the remaining trades with a net loss of -$1,642.64 and a profit factor of 0.36, so the account's positive contributors are highly concentrated.
Q. What does the 28.88% maximum drawdown tell me about risk?
A. The maximum drawdown of 28.88% is larger than the net loss of 23.2%, meaning the account fell to its low and then only partially recovered. It indicates the strategy has experienced a significant peak-to-trough decline relative to its capital base.
Q. The statement shows several trades closing at the same timestamp with similar losses. Does that prove a grid or basket strategy?
A. The parsed rows do not include paired entry tickets, so this cannot be confirmed. Repeated same-timestamp closures such as the -$111.84, -$94.77, and -$85.86 exits on 2026-10-02 are consistent with multiple simultaneous positions or scale-ins, but the exact structure requires ticket-level verification.
Q. How is RBOT different from asking a general-purpose AI assistant (such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or DeepSeek) to analyse my report myself?
A. A general AI only sees the text or screenshot you paste, and works every number out itself — that is where hallucinated metrics come from. RBOT runs a purpose-built MT4/MT5 parser first, and the resulting structured breakdown is then reviewed under a fixed audit prompt, which keeps the safety score consistent, reproducible and comparable across reports. The calculation behind every metric is published on this page so you can verify it yourself, and RBOT refuses to score what the report itself cannot prove (real slippage, spread, forward testing) — those are listed as unverified rather than silently counted as risk.