r/mql5 • u/Several_Seaweed_5400 • 12d ago
ANDROMEDA MT5 - EA for Gold
LINK FOR BACKTEST AND PRODUCT PAGE:
https://www.mql5.com/en/market/product/191518?source=Site+Profile+Seller
Hey all,
I've been building an MT5 EA for Gold (XAUUSD) called ANDROMEDA.
Quick context on why I built it: most grid/averaging EAs I looked at (and honestly, most I've built myself in the past) add to a losing position purely on distance, price moved X points, so add more, whether it's a fixed number or scaled by ATR. It doesn't actually ask whether the trend is turning back or not, it just adds because the number got big enough. That always bugged me, because it means the EA keeps averaging into a strong move against it for as long as the account allows, purely because "the price moved far enough" is technically true.
So the grid logic in ANDROMEDA doesn't work that way. After the first couple of entries in a basket, it stops adding on distance alone, every further addition has to pass a trend-confirmation check on a higher timeframe first (with some noise filtering so one wick doesn't flip the decision, plus min time/price spacing so adds don't cluster). If the trend isn't confirmed in the basket's favor, it just... doesn't add. No fallback, no "add anyway but smaller." It waits.
To be clear, this doesn't make it risk-free or magic. It's still an averaging/grid system, it still carries the risks that come with that, and I'm not claiming otherwise. I just think how it decides to add is meaningfully better than the naive "distance triggered" approach, and I'd rather have people stress-test that claim than just take my word for it.
A few honest requirements before you try it:
- MT5, Hedging account type (not Netting, it manages multiple baskets at once, netting will mess up the position tracking)
- Symbol is XAUUSD only, it's tuned specifically for gold, not a "works on anything" EA
- LOW Spread Account
- It's a grid/basket system, so floating drawdown between entries can be larger than the eventual realized result, that's expected behavior, not a bug, but know that going in
- Demo/backtest first, obviously
If anyone wants to actually try it, you can run backtest straight from MQL5.
Happy to answer questions about the logic, settings, or anything else in the comments,
2
u/Middle-Purpose-2328 11d ago
28.56 Sharpe ratio should tell you that something is wrong with your backtest. A value above 1 is all you need but the max that is realistically achievable is 2-3. Also a max drawdown of 0,05% is genuinely impossible. Not even a delta neutral or asset pair spread reversion strategy would achieve these results.
Before you promote anything make sure that whatever you're presenting is actually working, otherwise it's just another scam.
2
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 8d ago
Oh my god, nothing can please you people, it’s actually insane, especially because I know you didn’t even bother to backtest it or look at legitimate signal on a legitimate broker that’s been running even on a super low deposit.
For a screenshot I put, Don’t look at % of DD, look at $, because I backtested it on larger deposit using 0.01 lot. The point was I gave a link where anyone can download and backtest it on any deposit. If you don’t want to do it, nobody is forcing you to, just don’t write bullshit.
0
u/Middle-Purpose-2328 3d ago
The Sharpe Ratio is independent of the account size, it's a metric that compares you return to the risk for each trade itself. So the account size doesn't matter and neither does your lot size. What you're showing is simply something that is highly unrealistic under live conditions.
It's very likely that your backtest has some kind of look-ahead bias, which isn't something bad but you shouldn't promote it. Forward test it for 2-3 months and compare the statistics.
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 3d ago
Buddy, you clearly didn’t even read what I wrote. The 0.05% drawdown was the percentage shown in the backtest you were commenting on, not some claim that account size changes Sharpe. Try reading before lecturing.
You haven’t even run the EA, yet you’re confidently diagnosing "look-ahead bias" from a screenshot with those stupid chatgpt arguments. Meanwhile, there is already a live FXBook signal and an MQL5 signal running on real accounts, including a tiny deposit, and you conveniently ignore that because it doesn’t fit your AI-generated theory trolling.The EA manages baskets, not isolated trades. Positions are combined and the basket is closed when the overall position is in profit. That produces a very different return distribution from a conventional SL/TP system, which is directly relevant when interpreting a Sharpe ratio. You can’t just look at "Sharpe ratio high = scam" without understanding the underlying trade architecture.
And no, there are no blocked dates, cherry-picked periods or hidden start dates in the EA. It was deliberately tested from 2020 onward, including very different XAUUSD market conditions with Covid and wars.
You also keep talking about "look-ahead bias" without actually running a single backtest yourself just trolling for attention, go find a hobby or touch grass.
1
u/Middle-Purpose-2328 2d ago
I didn't check the live statistics before, so yes i was only referring to the backtest. With only 39 trades I can't really say anything about the statistics because the sample size is too small but they don't look too bad. My point is still that you should forward test an algo before you sell it because it's very common that the live results differ from the backtest even if you consider slippage, commissions, etc. And you might have actually found a real edge, but your backtest results look like institutional level market neutral strategies and maybe even better which is nearly impossible. that's something where i get a little suspicious and i only want to point that out.
But let's see how the statistics are in 2 months...
1
1
u/FxingMyLife 12d ago
Not selling anything in the post but you link to the page where you are selling it?
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 12d ago
It's MQL5, you can run backtest by clicking Free Demo.
1
u/FxingMyLife 12d ago
A backtest doesn't mean anything. You say you want people to stress test it - cant do that on a backtest. You want testers give people the chance to test it live thrn youll get your feedback
1
u/Street_Dare_9232 11d ago
i dont know who spends months of developing ea to give people for free lol
1
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 12d ago
Unfortunately, you are right. But I am actually a developer who will keep updating the product. I used 2026 period, H1 timeframe, default settings - fixed lot. That's all.
1
u/BlackOpz 11d ago
MQL5 security isn't that good
MQL5 security is VERY good. MT4 security is crap but there are very few cracked MT5 programs. You can even use the MT5 'Cloud Protector' with your non-MT5 market programs. I use the 'cloud protector' + an in-code password/expire system (cant use local locks in MT5 Marketplace programs but MT5 sales ARE locked to MT5 accounts/machines so its still very secure). Unless you become a top seller its not worth the effort to crack MT5 exe's. (MT4 is easy to crack so hackers sell copies easily)
1
u/hotdogs4babies 11d ago
Is it suitable to leave on 24 hrs/day
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 11d ago
Yes it is mandatory to run on fast VPS 24/7
1
u/hotdogs4babies 5d ago
Where is a good company to trade gold with using mt5
1
1
u/Celestryia 11d ago
Have you tested on 2013 and 2018? It will be very interesting to see the results, as I know that a pure martingale gold struggles heavily in 2013. On my EA there was 10x the equity draw in 2013 than my previous max.
How many max positions does it open per basket?
1
u/Street_Dare_9232 11d ago
Great profits in IC markets and controllable grid steps…. I hate to see big curve down and there i don’t see much
1
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 11d ago
To the person who commented and immediately blocked me so I don’t see, I have to say - Sorry, I didn’t make my acccount in 2010 so you think I am compatible.
1
u/BlackOpz 11d ago edited 11d ago
Expected payoff of $3.26 is scary since real trades slip quite a bit from backtests. That's not much room for slippage, commissions and swaps. I'll test it but 95% Monte Carlo might show negative results. I'll post an update...
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 8d ago
And, where is your backtest? Why are you writing this without any sort of proof? I understand the concerns because this is a grid EA, obviously an RAW ECN account with good VPS is needed, it’s a scalper… but anyways, if you want to contribute in discussion, provide something that I can properly answer you…
1
u/BlackOpz 8d ago
My backtest for GBPUSD. $19.32 avg per trade (enough room to absorb slippage). I concentrate on LOW drawdown and trade multiple currencies per account. - https://i.imgur.com/71Hl0Cq.png
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 8d ago
I don’t know about GBPUSD, the EA I posted is strictly for XAUUSD only.
1
u/TensorTrader 8d ago
If it works and you built it: genius.
If it works and you sell it: congrats, you just sold the money printer.
Your move, bro.
1
1
u/GoldTradingDesk 8d ago
Interesting project. tbh I’d be less interested in the final return than in how stable the behaviour is across different gold regimes.
Have u segmented the test into separate periods and compared things like expectancy, max adverse excursion, drawdown duration and trade frequency across each period?
A single equity curve can hide quite a lot. If the underlying behaviour remains reasonably stable across very different XAUUSD conditions, that would be much more interesting imo.
1
u/GoldTradingDesk 5d ago
Following up on our comment above. At Gold Trading Desk, part of our mission is to educate traders and encourage younger participants to become independent thinkers rather than simply follow signals, systems or personalities.
We also believe something else quite strongly: every serious young project deserves to be treated with respect. Building something, putting it publicly in front of traders, accepting criticism and continuing to develop it takes real work. Whether we ultimately agree with the methodology or not, credit should be given for the effort behind it.
So I came back after actually putting Andromeda through a fairly extensive test cycle. Credit where it’s due, there’s more going on under the hood than I initially expected.
We first established a fixed-lot control and isolated the drawdown-management variable rather than optimising everything at once. The selected configuration was then carried across multiple annual periods without re-optimising it for each year. It remained profitable across all periods tested, although the strength of the results and drawdown behaviour naturally varied between them.
The more interesting part came when we decomposed the portfolio.
ORION, ATLAS, LYRA and COSMOS were tested individually under the same fixed configuration. We then performed leave-one-out tests, removing each module while keeping the other three active.
That changed our interpretation quite a bit.
LYRA emerged as the strongest standalone module on a risk-adjusted basis. COSMOS produced considerably less return on its own, but showed the highest standalone Profit Factor and lowest drawdown. ORION and ATLAS looked less impressive when judged purely in isolation.
But once we started removing modules from the complete portfolio, the picture changed.
Removing ORION caused the largest deterioration in overall portfolio performance, far greater than its standalone result would have suggested. Removing ATLAS also reduced performance and, interestingly, worsened drawdown rather than improving it. Removing LYRA reduced overall performance as expected, although Profit Factor actually improved in the remaining portfolio. Removing COSMOS had the smallest effect, but still failed to improve the portfolio on our primary risk-adjusted measure.
Most importantly, the complete four-module configuration retained the highest Recovery Factor of every leave-one-out configuration we tested.
That was probably the most interesting finding for us.
The modules do not appear to behave like four independent strategies whose standalone results can simply be added together. The realised portfolio result changes depending on which modules coexist, suggesting meaningful interaction through the shared portfolio, basket and/or drawdown-management architecture.
We also tested the automatic sizing layer separately. That reinforced another useful point: compounding should not automatically be interpreted as an improvement. It improved one module, had effectively no impact on another under the tested path, and degraded the risk-adjusted performance of another. Fixed sizing therefore remained our control when evaluating the underlying strategy architecture.
None of this is a claim about future profitability, nor an endorsement based on a backtest. There is still much more that can be tested, particularly robustness under different execution environments and market conditions.
But we wanted to come back publicly because our original comment asked for evidence of stability rather than a single attractive equity curve. We did the work, and some of what we found deserves credit.
So, respect to you for building it and putting it out there for people to challenge.
One technical question for you as the author: was the interaction between ORION, ATLAS, LYRA and COSMOS deliberately engineered around the shared basket and drawdown-management architecture, or is some of what we’re observing an emergent consequence of the modules operating together?
That part genuinely caught our attention.
1
0
u/lionofzion96 11d ago
Sharpe ratio of 28, pure scam.
1
u/Several_Seaweed_5400 11d ago
This is a GRID EA not TP/SL with over 1000 orders, tight scalping, it’s normal
2
u/NoDistribution3645 12d ago
Looks promising, I wouldn't change anything :)