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.

New Natives Filters (Reloaded version): Good Scores, On Fire,

@ignacio @juancolonbo

Youou !! Good Score Filter = “A good score in ALL Attributes

XXW for example but many darwins on the 50 darwins selected by your algo as VFL (1.8 Loss Aversion, ouahhh a very good score for a principal IA), MEM (1.7 in Os), BUE (1.7 in Cs), etc etc etc

Could you explain this filter with IA < 2 ? Not All attributes so change the definition of “Good Score” (50 darwins) or reset your algo filter, hihi.

I criticize but is to understand and make progress my favorite broker and AM.

Kind regards


1 Like

Thanks for reporting this, I will have this reviewed.


1 Like

I think Good Scores is:
Ex 6.5
Pf 7.5
Mc 7
Rs 7


I think a good combo for new investors could be
Good Scores + Return > 50%
Only 20 darwins.

I seems that I was wrong about Good Scores and Risk Stability… it’s a pity…
Happy to have my custom filters.


I thank @VolcanoFX that showed me the brand new filter “Under the Radar”

At a first glance the rules seem to be:

  • Good Scores
  • Ex 10
  • AUM < 500k
  • divergence > - 0.5%
  • 6 months native trackrecord

Glad to see that darwinex is using some filters we are asking since a lot of time.
Unfortunately those filters aren’t available to us mortals.


You thank wrong as i said:
ECE darwin has RS < 4 & La < 5 = Poor Quants of Darwinex.

I always say the Good Score filter (& many others things) was busy (see false).


Indeed! :grinning:
You didn’t missed it!

This one should be pretty powerful imho.

Over the time, it should make easy the process to renew its inventory of DARWINs on a regular basis, while keeping optimal scalability, on diversified portfolios.

We hope you’ll appreciate it!


Very appreciated.

I think also Darwinex is appreciating some criterias that work. :wink:


I don’t think that there is a Ex = 10 rule.
RZX has a 9.6 for EX
Also it seems that the “good scores” is not = to the badge “good scores”… (unless I don’t understand why BSL hasn’t got the badge!) …

1 Like

Yes maybe there are a couple of exceptions, even if it were Ex 9.5 it would not change so much. :smiley:

Another possibility could be DScore 70 instead of Good Scores and Ex 10.
This rule could explain also why BDR and DLI haven’t this badge.

1 Like

I think that the D-scores>70 = “good scores” is the right answer

1 Like

The complete formula is in the blog.
BTW I think Performance > 7 is redundant so not necessary.
Ther are no darwins with DScore 70+ and Performance under 7 .


Six month of live experience on Darwinex are not only an anti-scam filter.

It proves that you are used to the differences beteween strategy and Darwin and you know how to deal with important concepts like Var and Cp.


As you can see with revised DScore darwins like JZH and AOF are below 70 so out of “under the radar” filter .
With an improved DScore additional conditions and customized filters will be less necessary. :slight_smile:


Filters cannot be fakes because they are results of criteria, worst case their names don’t fill your expectations :smirk:


If we want to speak about filters Promising is quite useless, On Fire can be used to sell darwins…
Good Scores is a little better, Under the Radar is much better.

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

My opinion is that filters aren’t a medal or prize.
They are useful to explore the exchange, some of them can be a good base to build a portfolio but some optimizations are needed.

1 Like