CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. -- % of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

D-Score and Investable Attributes

DScore behaves like a de-trended return.
It is useful for a superficial analysis, just like return and drawdown, and a superficial analysis is just the beginning, not enough to find robust darwins that will perform in the future.

DScore is unchanged since May 2018 , I think they are not working on it since they started to work to the API , I dont’ share this decision.

If you look to the landing page for investors there is no mention to DScore, they are not marketing it so strong as 3 years ago.
Investors are invited to start from the Model Portfolio and to look for traders in the Hall Of Fame.
So provider earnings are a better indicator than DScore.


I remember one of your old comments where you suggested to invest only darwins with a good Risk Stability score.
Risk Stability works almost perfectly while other scores like LA and MC are 10% of what they should be.
Despite it RS has a relative low weight in DScore.

DScore will never be perfect, it rates the past and it will never be enough to guess future performance but it should not be so difficult to calibrate the algos in a better way than the current one.

I’m curious what the theoretical maximum D-Score of a Darwin would be if it scored a perfect 10 on all 12 attributes. Would that be a D-Score of 100, or can it go above?

1 Like

Max DScore is 100.
The max reached DScore is 90 with darwin TMB on May 2018 .

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Loss Aversion Investable Attribute

You forgot to add:Migrated crap,useless for investors.

Ok but this is not a topic on migrations, there are many others. :wink:

That is very true.
Avg. win +17p
Avg. loss -59p

So RS and RA aren’t that heavily weighted?

Unfortunately no , look to GFA …
The evolution of DScore has been reducing the weight for Timing and Consistency and adding a lot of weight to MC and LA.
Risk Stability has been snubbed and in my opinion it is the most useful and efficient algo.


RA could be important somehow, bur RS is useless.

good morning to everybody
In relation to the DScore volatility debate we have made an interesting analysis. In this analysis we refer to the influence of the Ds to access Darwinia, we do not refer to the quality of the darwins that we have used to do the analysis.
Given the length of the analysis we give you the link to see it:

We believe it is important to read it and we know that there will be positive and negative opinions. We do not want to create controversy but to know the reason for that volatility and that difference between darwins.
We also hope to clarify doubts that we believe other Darwins have in the same situation as ours.


It is evident that they are not caring anymore about DScore .
ULI by @javicolonbo : DScore 48
DWF by @DarwinexLabs : DScore 60
I have no doubts that ULI is more investable than DWF

MC and LA make sense but their weight is too high .
Just one of the many problems of DScore .

The community would be more useful if every trader discussed about investable attributes.
Usually we have:

  • people harmed by EX discussing about EX
  • people harmed by LA discussing about LA
  • people harmed by MC discussing about MC

I think every suggestion is more credible when it is neutral and directed to improve DScore for investors, not just for Darwinia.


Hello community,

we are already working on a solution to modify the concept of the D-Score and investable attributes.
It is too early to give more information, but i think it is relevant for you to know that you can expect big changes for the better this year.

Given the nature of technological developments at Darwinex, it isn’t always possible to communicate exactly where we are as regards any particular development. What we can assure you of is that we are on it, and only able to give you more details as and when they surface.

We will produce a podcast and/or video series in the next few months wherein we will describe the motivation behind the changes, and the specifics of the changes themselves once they have entered the development phase.


One of the characteristics we like most about Darwinex is that people who have to be in it are always in the front row. How important it is to know that whoever holds the reins puts hands in solving conflicts. We will be attentive to the improvements and grateful for them.


These are good news, and I’d applaud if Dscore would be removed for good.
IMO naked info is the best information, and the attributes are a terrific tool to see and analyze the information faster, but Dscore is not information, it is a biased indicator based on a subjective opinion, which just benefit some kind of darwins and harm others.


Thanks @bigginie for your kind words here trying to criticize the dscore, and sharing a video and report, and congratulations for your results.

Thanks also because this is the way that everybody should do, not only empty words and destructive messages, because it let us clarify when your conclusions are wrong, and are creating a climate of doubts about darwinex job.

Please take my words in a constructive way, and I am going to try to help you, to know what is really happening and how Darwinex IA’s can help us to analyse very quickly darwins. Thanks Darwinex :pray:

It did not like your report. I read it because you said that was interesting, but sorry in my opinion is very superficial, trivial and wrong. Either I don’t like that you are comparing with darwins of other colleagues, trying to conclude something that is wrong and is really easy to explain, with a minimum analysis of no more than 2 minutes.

I am also really sorry because when you come here with it it seems that you are convinced that you have high knowledge of what you are explaining… :roll_eyes: If it were not, the first step would have to be to come here asking for help.

Your conclusions are: you have a very low dscore and you are not able to fight for darwinia contest. You say that is unfair comparing only with the performance of other darwins, and even criticize the speed of recovery.

You conclude that your problem is low La, and you explained that the reason is your high Cs :flushed:

I am going to explain you everything:

Everybody has to understand that Darwinex created D-score to help investor to evaluate what they consider bad and good trading, not only performance.

It is like an analysis of the doctor. Perhaps results are bad, and you have to check dephtly, and at the end conclude that you will have good health, or not as show performance, or conclude that you have syntoms of a future desease…

Most of us can analyse darwins without dscore, but investors need to be protected. The problem is that always will have healthy darwins prejudiced…

Attached the evolution of dscore

Sorry to inform you that you have a problem with La, but the IA which is holding dscore low is Mc not La.

In point (1) you can see in the max score and 10 exp in Dec 18 with a dscore of more than 70, you had La very low. Then you can understand that is not La the problem…

In point (2) we check that performance pF and Mc fell down, creating minimum dscore

In point (3) pF went up again and Mc continue falling, and you claim that dscore is not recovering as other darwins…

Now you can realise that is Mc is creating the problem, and until you don’t change your style, will never recover dscore. I am sorry.

I would like to go depht with Mc and La, because if you are one of the healthy darwins you have to give explanations about it, because dscore is detecting conclusions of bad trading, always below parameters of darwinex not mine.

Although the information of trades and pairs is hidden, somebody can extract some conclusions:

Mc is going down to zero, that means that the darwin is trading in only one side of the market.

In the chart of Mc I saw that is one instrument with the 80% of weight that is ONLY LONG and last 6dperiod open a 92% of the time in the market, only reading the information.

If we read La, we find a really big negative excursión of almost 50% of losses, in an only currency pair. That’s why La is so low, no the good Cs.

This position started in may of 2019. If we do a small investigation, we could think that the pair traded is USDJPY and the Darwin is long all the time.

In my opinion, If we compare USDJPY with the Darwin, it seems to confirm that is long from may, USD and darwin started to fall, and dleverage started to increase, creating the negative excursión of 50%, after USD started to recover, and the Darwin even better because was traded with more dleverage in the darwin because Rs was going down quickly, that got that the Darwin has got a new HWM but USD not, after this effective management.

I am not judging, only Reading, is Darwinex which is qualifying this type of trading not me.

I hope that this analysis could help.


Great words as ever… but sorry it seems difficult to read


It was a while I hadn¨t read a post so lacking in touch, so hypocritical and cynical (please understand I am criticizing your post, not the writer).:wink:

@biggenie may not have done an exhaustive analysis like yours, but honestly he didn’t need it. He has shown facts, and the facts show the truth for themselves. The truth here is that the DS is a very flawed, manipulated and subjective tool that confuses more than helps. And it is not because it harms my or your darwin, it is because DS is not an attribute itself, it is a compound of weighted attributes with a formula which offers a distorted outcome of most of darwins.

Here I have read more often that I´d like about robustness, experience, Dscore, long trackrecord, etc…what it is fine, but at the end of the day the ONLY reason every and each of us are here is…performance, it is a MONEY business. Isn´t it?

When you see long track record darwins with negative results, losing money during years and having 60 o 70 of DS, and getting Darwinia AUM with just a good performance month, something is not working (and it is not only about Darwinia). When after several years a darwin is losing money, it CAN NOT have a high DScore, PERIOD. This is a misleading message to investors and very unfair for other darwins too. And this is easily proven with examples and facts, a deeper analysis is only a waist of time and an insut to people common sense.

When you have a flat tire, you don’t need to know what caused it, if it was a nail, a screw or a piece of glass that deflated it, you just need to pull your car over to avoid killing yourself or someone else and put a new tire.

@biggenie has shown in an easy way, with examples something that we all understand, and many of us agree, including @javicolonbo whom has wrote right away a post saying the Dscore is going to be changed. Why? Plain and simple, because it is not working.

I hope you do not take my post personal, unlike you did with @biggenie, I don´t pretend to school you, I am offering my humble opinion about yours and @biggenie post.

I hope the next time you want to disagree with someone, you have the delicacy of insulting him directly, because with finesse, it is much worse. All this, of course, is according to my modest opinion.

Have a great weekend!

PS: I am not going to write comments back and forth with you, my opinion has been expressed, and I don´t pretend to convince anyone. These are just my opinions and they work for me.

1 Like

Tons of words because a certain Darwin is currently not attractive for investors and not rewarded by DarwinIA?

Not very attractive for investors currently because

  • description only Spanish
  • weak profit in 2019
  • max. DD exceeds 10, 15 and 20 %
  • profit / DD less than 3
  • Return less than 50 %

I‘ve read that investor accounts don’t see DarwinIA.

1 Like