CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 66 % 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.

Is the ranking of strategies really consistent and fair

Darwinia allocates promising darwins, true winners turn allocation into fees and are listed in the Hall of Fame.
There are more than 140 allocated darwins, they aren’t successful, just promising with a relevant trackrecord.

A perfect example why Darwinia algorithms are not perfect and has to be improved is this darwin XQM, it was in 71 position yesterday and 82 right now, what means it could still get in the top 48 this month, what it´s crazy to me…

Nothing crazy, you have to study what is Activity, has been discussed at the beginning of this topic.
Normal activity for today is 76%.

The end of the month matters, and you can’t win with a DScore of 5 and a rating of 48 :smiley:

Algos can be improved but often is kowledge of the algos and rules that have to be improved.

1 Like

I know what activity means, that was not the point CavaliereVerde.

Dear @Forexintradiadarwin,

I think this discussion refers to the ranking of strategies, NOT to DarwinIA.

While there is no “official ranking” but several rankings based on whichever criteria you like, I’d suggest visiting and filtering by different criteria (return, DD, Darwinex-Score, etc.).

For example, this is how the list looks like if you filter by D-Score:

As @CavaliereVerde pointed out, DarwinIA is a MONTHLY contest and hence is not optimal to find long term investments.

I hope this info proves useful!


I agree with your first sentence ¨month after month DarwinIA become more “fair”, however I am not sure if it Darwinia will be fairer every month or not… Won´t Darwinia become a contest only for ¨old dinosaurs¨? I see how every month it is more difficult for medium experienced Darwins to get into the top 48 even if they have good performance.
But it is common to see old experienced Darwins with 50-60 D-Score, and a losing global performance getting in the top 48 just with a mediocre or decent month…I am not sure it is a good thing for Darwinia. If I was a Darwinex director I´d consider to modify Darwinia.
It´d still be a monthly contest but taking results of the last three months combined…so nobody with a lucky month would be there, regardless if it is a ¨dinosaur trader¨or a ¨new promising lyon¨…
Isn´t it what Darwinex is anyway doing to calculate and pay the performance fees? If they do it for the results, why don´t do same to qualify? Have you Darwinex staff considered this possibility already?

1 Like

I now get the point. However, don’t you think there’s an important element missing from the ranking. And that is overall performance. I’m baffled to see Darwin XDO occupying the No.32. position when it’s obvious that it has got just one lucky month.
In my opinion, a Darwin has no business in the Darwina contest if it has not yet made a profit.


You were too fast to split my comment. It’s also applicable to the above topic and readers might not have the luxury of scrolling up to 178 page to read it.


Questions about Darwinia and return since inception have been answered already at least 10 times and are a different subject than Activity.
Reading 170 comments isn’t necessary, you can concentrate on the last 50. :sunglasses:

1 Like

Hi @SmartTrader!!

Think about a person who started trading and continued in the same account, but he learnt the hard way with several drawdowns.

Should we penalize his learning curve? Should the trader create a new account just because he has learnt something new?

DarwinIA is an algorithm because it has not the bias of seeing past return curve.

In any case, we measure D-Score (along with Return and Activity on the month), so overall performance is already taken into account, just not the equity curve.

If you have a suggestion on how to measure it, we are all ears! :grin:


Obviously, I thought about this before the previous comment. Mind you, such a Darwin will even scare away Investors. I personally wouldn’t create a Darwin with such an account. My suggestion is to make it rolling 12 months for older Darwins only. I personally don’t even bother looking at more than one year performance of a trader to make an opinion on such a trader. New accounts are penalised a lot here so why wouldn’t an older account with a bad performance.


I have some objections against this idea because you would penalize good Younger Darwins than 12 Months only because of the age. When activity is measured of the last quarter (by comparing against previous exposure), maybe performance of the last quarter could be taken into account.
A too long period keeps crashing heroes like TAK or NMM too long on the good ranks.


Inception can be “optimized”, there are a lot of “trackrecord’s taylors” around. :wink:
At least when you find a darwin like XDO you can be sure it isn’t a scam.
Maybe a lucky loser, maybe a loser turning to a winner, future will tell…

1 Like

No, you didn’t read my comments well. It can only be applied to older Darwins that’s more than one year old.

Sorry, I read that but exactly that is what I don’t want. 3 months is enough. It is a contest and it doesn’t make sense to sponsor always the same Darwins.

The contest cannot replace investor ‚s due diligence.

1 Like

@Journalist, the @SmartTrader main idea about taking in consideration only profitable accounts is good. Averaging the last three months is even better as you mentioned. However while Darwinex keep weighting D-Score and Exp so much, young darwins will have zero or minimum chances to rank well in Darwinia.
I proposed many times to average the last 3 months to rank for Darwinia everymonth. And lower the D-Score and Experience weight too. It´d be a fairer contest where all Darwins would have a real opportunity to clasify high if they do thing well for at least three months. I also agree your comment ¨_It is a contest and it doesn’t make sense to sponsor always the same Darwins_.¨ I know my Darwin BIL is having higher D-Score and Exp atribute, and my proposal will be against my own Darwin, however I am not saying it because it could benefit me, but because I think it is fair. I hope Darwinex pay attention to our coments and make a back testing of this proposal to see what had happened in the past if these parameters had been ruled the contest.


Of course it’s not a fair contest considering the fact that Darwinex does not have the capacity to link platforms other than MT4. People like us that have been trading with other platforms have to start from scratch here. I propose
rolling 12 months for older Darwins then averaging last 3 months for newer Darwins for a fairer contest.

Someone like me will also put your community presence and ability to update your Investors/Darwin as a weight also to participate in DarwinA.

The Darwinia issue has been a very disappointing one for me personally. You can have one of the top 20 performing Darwins for the year and you still won’t get noticed because you don’t have Ex10. The fact that it is one of the biggest attractions to Darwinex means that new customers are in for a rude awakening when they create an account without reading threads like this. And if somehow they are aware of this problem, they may be tempted to migrate an account (even if no longer related to their strategy) just for the sake of the Ex which is basically cheating.

Of course if you are a scalper with a tailor made automated strategy that can churn out 50 trades a week, you will build your EX faster but people that have longer term strategies may be the most profitable, in terms of generated profits and consistency, and still not have any chance of coming anywhere near the top 48 for at least a year. In my case, it will take up to 2 years or more even!

Imagine joining a broker because you are interested in winning allocations and investments only to see that you won’t get anything for a year or even more regardless of performance, because of rankings.It was disappointing for me and I am sure it is the same for many other individual traders. I have been lucky to at least get some investments that have kept me going… Not many new traders will be that lucky and it is demoralising.

I agree with people that have mentioned the need for another competition that doesn’t punish newcomers. It doesn’t have to be as big as Darwinia.


I understand your frustration to some extent and tend to agree that the gap between frequently and rarely trading Darwins, while it makes sense in terms of statistical significance (arguably with some limitations, e.g. frequent trading system may get to Ex10 without going through different market cycles), should not have the same weight in DarwinIA. On the other hand, I find the principle of privileging established Darwins in DarwinIA constructive in terms of the kind of trading it incentivizes. Forex-trading is terribly skewed toward gambling, too many people desperate to make a quick buck who end up losing it all. Even though DarwinIA rewards performance in a relatively short timespan, it still requires traders to prove some moderate amount of longevity (both in order to be ranked among the top Darwins in any given month and in order to be payed performance fees). Within the toxic environment that is the Forex-industry, these are important steps that in my opinion have some real educational value especially for traders looking to see immediate returns.