HMA Cross vs EMA Cross: Does Less Lag Mean Better Results?
HMA is marketed as the moving average that eliminates lag — our 660,005-backtest database puts that claim in context.
What HMA Actually Does Differently
The Hull Moving Average squares the period, applies a weighted moving average of a weighted moving average, then differences the two lines to cancel most smoothing delay. The result tracks price noticeably faster than an EMA of the same period. That part of the marketing claim is accurate.
An EMA cross (such as 20/50 or 50/200) applies exponential decay weighting — recent bars count more, but every prior bar still pulls the line backward relative to current price. The lag is real. In fast moves it can mean entering a trend well after it has started.
Faster Is Not Always Better
Here is the tension: the same lag that makes an EMA cross feel slow also filters out noise. A faster line reacts to more price moves, which means it triggers on more moves that immediately reverse. Every crossover system pays a whipsaw tax — small losses each time the signal fires and price turns back.
HMA reduces lag; it does not remove the whipsaw problem. In markets that trend cleanly, the faster entry can help. In choppy or range-bound conditions, HMA will likely fire more losing crosses than a slower EMA on the same asset — not fewer.
What 660,005 Backtests Reveal About Crossover Strategies
Across 903 assets and 382 tested indicators — including EMA cross variants like the 50/200 and 20/50 — only 26% of indicator-and-asset combinations beat a simple buy-and-hold return over the timeframes we tested (1-Hour, 4-Hour, Daily, and Weekly). The median best Sharpe ratio across those winning combinations was 0.62. Those numbers apply to the whole tested universe, MA crosses included.
EMA crosses are among the most widely traded setups in the world. That ubiquity is part of the problem: well-known signals get arbitraged. What works depends heavily on the specific asset and timeframe, not on which MA variant you prefer in theory.
Which One Has the Edge by Asset Class?
Our data shows that top-performing indicators vary sharply by asset class. Stocks lean toward Fibonacci Pivots and Projection Bands. Forex is dominated by Fisher Transform. Crypto favours MA Envelope and pivot-based methods. None of those are standard MA crosses — which suggests that for most assets and timeframes, neither the HMA cross nor the EMA cross is the empirically optimal starting point.
That does not mean either is useless. For assets where trend-following has a structural edge, an MA cross can still work as a directional filter. The question is whether HMA's speed advantage produces measurably better risk-adjusted returns net of additional whipsaws for your specific asset — and the honest answer is that it depends on that asset's volatility regime.
The Honest Verdict
HMA does what it claims: it reduces lag. If you have an EMA cross that works on an asset, switching to an HMA cross of similar periods will likely give you earlier entries on average. Whether those earlier entries survive transaction costs and the extra whipsaws is an empirical question per asset, not a theoretical one.
These are hypothetical backtest results with realistic transaction costs applied across the timeframes tested — not a forecast, and not financial advice. They show what a strategy would have returned historically. Before committing to any crossover variant, check the HMA Cross indicator page for the asset you actually trade.
Questions, answered
Does HMA always outperform EMA crosses?
No. HMA reduces lag mathematically, but lag reduction alone does not guarantee better net returns. In trending regimes the faster signal can help; in choppy markets it tends to generate more whipsaws. The outcome is asset- and timeframe-specific — there is no universal winner across 903 assets.
What timeframes did your backtests cover?
We tested 1-Hour, 4-Hour, Daily, and Weekly bars across 903 assets. We did not test scalping or sub-hourly timeframes. Claims about HMA outperforming EMA on 1-minute or 5-minute charts are not something our data addresses.
Are these results a guarantee of future profits?
No. All results on this site are hypothetical backtests with realistic transaction costs applied. They show what a strategy would have returned historically, not what it will return going forward. Nothing here is financial advice. Past backtest performance does not guarantee future results.
If neither wins universally, what should I use instead?
Check the asset-specific leaderboard for the asset you trade. Our database covers 382 indicators across 903 assets — the empirical best varies by asset class and timeframe, not by which MA you prefer in theory.
Every figure here comes from our own out-of-sample backtests, costs included — not a course or a guess. Educational information only — not investment advice. Hypothetical backtested results; past performance does not guarantee future results. Trading involves risk of loss.
Keep reading
Get the weekly edge report
The best-performing indicator per asset, what changed this week, and the honest caveats — straight to your inbox.