Profit Indicator Benchmark Reports

What These Reports Measure

A profit indicator benchmark report answers one question: does this indicator, applied systematically, beat a passive buy-and-hold position after realistic trading costs? IndicatorEdge ran 660,005 out-of-sample backtests across 903 assets—stocks, forex pairs, crypto, commodities, ETFs, and indices—testing 382 distinct indicators across four timeframes: 1-Hour, 4-Hour, Daily, and Weekly.

The benchmark is strict. Every strategy runs on data it never saw during parameter selection, and every trade carries realistic costs. A strategy passes only if it delivers a higher Sharpe ratio than holding the asset outright. That standard filters out most of what gets marketed as a profit indicator.

The Headline Numbers

Across all 903 assets tested, 571 have at least one indicator that beats buy-and-hold—about 63% of the universe. But that number needs context: only 26% of individual indicator-asset-timeframe combinations beat the benchmark. Most indicators fail on most assets most of the time. The median best-case Sharpe ratio across all winning setups is 0.62—solid, not exceptional.

Short-side strategies show edge on only 17.4% of assets. Smart Money Concepts (SMC) indicators—liquidity sweeps, order blocks, and related setups—produced no asset where they beat buy-and-hold across these backtests.

Which Indicators Top the Benchmark by Asset Class

The results differ substantially by asset class, which is why a single 'best indicator' claim is always suspect. Every table below comes directly from the out-of-sample backtest data.

For stocks, the top benchmark performers by number of assets won are Fibonacci Pivots (22), Projection Bands (16), Intraday Momentum Index (16), Camarilla Pivots (16), and Markov Regime (14). For forex, Fisher Transform dominates at 17 assets—well ahead of DMI Direction (3) and Parabolic SAR fast (2). In crypto, MA Envelope leads with 5 assets, followed by Fibonacci Pivots (4) and Delta Volume Rising (4). ETFs are led by QQE at 4 assets. Commodities show Keltner Mean-Reversion (3) and Laguerre RSI (2) at the top.

No single indicator dominates every market. An indicator that ranks first in forex may appear nowhere in the commodity or crypto results. That cross-class divergence is one of the clearest findings in the data.

The High Win Rate Trap

Some of the most widely discussed indicators post impressive median win rates in these backtests—while still failing to beat buy-and-hold. Murrey Math Lines shows a median win rate of 74.3% but beats buy-and-hold on only 11% of assets. Holy Grail Confluence reaches 73.3% median wins but passes the benchmark on only 8% of assets. Ultimate Oscillator (72.7% wins, 11% pass rate), Money Flow Index (72.2% wins, 9% pass rate), RSI Mean-Reversion (71.7% wins, 10% pass rate), SMC Liquidity Sweep (71.2% wins, 8% pass rate), CCI (71.0% wins, 9% pass rate), and DeMarker (71.0% wins, 10% pass rate) follow the same pattern.

A high win rate can coexist with negative expected value when losses are larger than wins. The benchmark captures this by measuring risk-adjusted return against the passive alternative—not raw win percentage. If you evaluate an indicator only by how often it's right, you will miss this failure mode entirely.

How to Read a Benchmark Report

Each asset page on IndicatorEdge shows the indicator that produced the highest out-of-sample Sharpe ratio for that asset, the timeframe it ran on, and whether it beat buy-and-hold. You can filter the full asset list by class—stock, forex, crypto, ETF, commodity, index—to find patterns that match what you trade.

If an indicator you currently use doesn't appear in the top results for your asset class, that's a data point worth taking seriously. It means 382 indicators were evaluated and that one didn't make the cut on the available evidence. The methodology page explains the full backtest construction, including how out-of-sample splits and cost assumptions were applied.