CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 64 % 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.

ZVQ : migrated and live results

NIce recovery so far

investors held their nerve


If I know anything about PAMM investors psychology,smart ones are only waiting to get out at break-even point after suffering unnecessary stress.There are available Darwins for investment with much better performance and much less risk.His La graph since migration in last November is dismal.Especially for an entity who claims to be institutional level managing 500 Mil.

Since migration he cannot hold his max.estimated investment level above 3 mil.,let that sink in.If he is institutional I will eat my shoes.


That is the trading account - 23.67 % profit in more than 9 years could be made for institutionals - as part of a startegy basket based on avoiding correlation.

1 Like

Humans are irrational creatures

Just look at SCS performance since migration. if that was all they investors saw, SCS would have no more than 10k investment. but that pre migration equity curve keeps them dreaming


When I came to Darwinex at the beginning of this year,I was very enthusiastic, because I thought there were already 20 rock solid traders.Than I discovered Migration problem.At Alpari PAMM nobody migrated anything. .Since analyzing this problem,I came to conclusion to ignore all migrated data and analyze only trades done on Darwinex platform.
If some poor chap from Eastern Europe can completely fake his MT4 trackrecord,than what can I expect from people coming from richer places.


I agree to ignore the migrated return, by the way the native part is a 16% return with a 16% DD that seems quite robust, and trading journal is consistent and without bad trading.

In 2017 the trading account made 0.5 %, the Darwin made 42 %. The Darwin’s performance is made by playing the risk manager and not by trading results.

Trading results = pips
If you lose pips for one year no risk manager can turn it to a profit.
Return is just a vertical scale.

Making pips in the right moment (lower VaR) can compensate losing some more pips with a higher VaR. Additional the risk manager smoothed losses, also small ones, if it is triggered right.
Both is good for investors.

1 Like

Not all pips are made at the same VaR and same leverage,as @IlIlIlIlI already pointed out.You can earn almost 0 pips in a year and turn big profit anyway.You can do also the opposite,like FSK demonstrated in last 6 months,earning a lot of positive pips and returning -17%.

Saying this about DD,while you know that it is not the truth is bad.Like as in Alpari PAMM,investors here at Darwinex can entry or exit their PAMM/darwins whenever during the day.That is why Alpari was very strict with recording all DD down to last 0.01%,while Darwinex is recording only DD at the end of trading day,and misleading the investor.ZVQ has -22% DD during the day in a single trade in January.At the beginning of August he also had almost 20% DD in only two consecutive trades.
Saying there is no bad trading since migration,while I just posted his very bad LA graph showing his bad trading during that period is also incomprehensible.Darwinex nicely educates and warns investors about this in Education section,few excerpts:

What is it?

The Loss aversion atrribute (La) evaluates whether a trading strategy exhibits symmetric behaviour independently of whether a position is winning or losing.

Many traders demonstrate an inability to close losing positions, often accumulating significant losses in the forlorn hope that the market will reverse course. These same traders often exhibit a tendency to close winning positions too early, prematurely taking profits.

When a trader lets losses run and closes winning positions quickly, they are said to suffer from the well known cognitive bias called loss aversion.

Darwinex considers this behavioural bias extremely dangerous, especially if it is combined with significant levels of leverage.

Although final investment decisions are down to each individual investor, Darwinex strongly recommends paying close attention to the La score. IN fact we would go so far as to say that DARWINs with low La scores are not particularly investable.


I know the theory thanx.
After the basics it is better to study what we have in the real world.
Clearly according to who designed the algo LA is a kind of Grail.
So how do you explain NTI , PLF WFJ ?
Some of the longest native trackrecord of Darwinex ?

LA is a naive concept that a trader that has SL 20 pips and TP 40 pips is better than a trader with SL 40 and TP 20.

Going back to ZVQ I suggest you to look to the LA chart for the whole trackrecord and you will discover that 2 is the average value.

1 Like

WFJ is the only one of these 3 which made a significant amount of money for its investor when I look at the hall of fame in the last 6 months shown, I assume. Darwinex should show that on the Darwin’s investor tab so that one can be sure that it really was this Darwin. The finbou stuff mentioned above shows the same problem for investors.

1 Like

You have a good point here,earnings should be shown per each individual darwin,not all together for owner of sometimes many darwins.

1 Like

@CavaliereVerde I don’t look at migrated data because I don’t know which is real and which is fake/doctored.I analyze only Darwinex native data because they are regulated in London and I assume owners of the company don’t want to pay huge fines or end up in prison.
Those darwins you mention have small returns and small Capacity.They have a problem.They are not interesting neither for hedge funds community,neither for investors here at Darwinex.Even you are forced to apply double leverage in your investments in them.It seems that even providers of those darwins are not big fans of their own darwins,judging by their VaR and investments.
Back to ZVQ,if you insist that trackrecord is real in its full length,than you should also look at his Capacity during those years when this institutional provider was managing hundreds of millions and ask yourself a few questions.
LA stuff wasn’t invented by some smart Darwinex quant.It is a common knowledge among people on Wall street.

1 Like

While SCS is an evident fake the trackrecord of ZVQ is realistic, we have drawdowns, stagnations and many red months.

A manual analysis of the trading journal has the priority on every score and there is nothing bad on trading journal.

It is common knowledge also that cotrarian trading requires stops longer than targets.

All trading is contrarian @CavaliereVerde.It all depends which Time-frame you are looking.On one timeframe you are contrarian on the other you are in the range and on some third timeframe you are trend-follower.

I run both trend and contrarian setups and it happens that they enter the same position even if the reason is different.
This does not change that on hundreds of trades trend setups require short stops and contrarian requires long stops to work.

About capacity as you wrote once this is the capacity of Darwinex with current liquidity providers.
Another reason is that a capacity of 5 millions at var 10% can be 500 millions at var 0,1%

capacity is always to calculate with VaR 10% - the investor’s one.
Capacity does not depend on VaR, but on the markets offering. Everything else would not work.

You insist on your war against ZVQ
After 10 months native are you so sure it is a scam?
IMO it is investable.

Yes,it is a Marketing scam.And bad trader on top of that.

1 Like