Durchschnittliche Bewertung:
Ahmad Hafizi Mohamed
465
Ahmad Hafizi Mohamed 2026.07.18 01:15  (geändert 2026.07.20 13:59) 

I have been following this signal and it was very solid until a minor EA glitch on 17/7. The developer was extremely responsive, explained the situation perfectly, and is updating the EA with stricter daily limits to prevent it from happening again. Great to see a developer who actually listens to feedback and improves the system. Looking forward to the new updates!

Lee Derek Champion
93
Lee Derek Champion 2026.07.17 19:57  (geändert 2026.07.17 20:18) 

I experienced a slight loss at first, but it subsequently recovered excellently with much larger profits. I will leave a review after using it for one month.

Thomas Nickel
1013
Thomas Nickel 2026.07.15 07:35 

The signal works great. I noticed some people writing that it doesn't work on XAUUSD+. Usually, MQL5 filters out the "+" suffix automatically, so it should work fine. Even if it doesn't, that is not an issue with the signal itself. Leaving a bad review for that is not fair.

I have been looking for good signals for a long time, but hadn't found anything solid until now. I don't know how Shengzu Zhong does it, but this signal has a real edge and delivers results. While 99% of the signals here on MQL5 are not very good, this one is two levels above the rest. It clearly plays in the top league. The fact that 127 people have already subscribed—and the number is still growing—shows that it works.

The main question is how long it will continue to perform this well. Another thing to consider is what happens during a drawdown. The maximum drawdown is supposedly only 20%. However, if two drawdowns happen close together, the profits will quickly be wiped out.

The developer has created two top-tier signals that are almost too good to be true. I have been testing this one for about four weeks now. Let's hope it keeps running like this for at least another six months. My advice to anyone using it is to set your Stop Loss (SL) to 20% or 25%.

Elev8 Reserve
51
Elev8 Reserve 2026.07.03 12:23 

Subscribed ~2 months but never copied a single trade — the cause is a broker symbol mismatch, not the strategy. The provider trades gold as plain XAUUSD (forex-classified, IC Markets). My broker (Vantage) lists gold as XAUUSD+, classified as a CFD. MetaTrader's copier only auto-maps symbol names for forex-classified instruments, so every trade was rejected with "symbol XAUUSD not found." Both MQL5 and my broker confirmed it can't be fixed subscriber-side. Heads-up for anyone on a broker whose gold is a suffixed CFD symbol (XAUUSD+, XAUUSD.r): this signal won't copy — check your gold symbol's exact name and margin classification before subscribing. I couldn't evaluate the strategy itself, but the public track record looks strong.

Gothen-13
57
Gothen-13 2026.06.19 06:17 

Bonjour, tout fonctionne parfaitement depuis que je suis inscrit il y a deux semaines. Je recommande

Yao Zou
1896
Yao Zou 2026.06.18 01:51 

欢迎中国朋友一起跟单交流v hsudyu

Mird11
76
Mird11 2026.06.10 20:04 

i use vantage,and its been 4 days not coping ,could be bacause of slippage

Nhut Anh Phan
2069
Nhut Anh Phan 2026.05.27 12:15  (geändert 2026.05.27 18:18) 

Good

Hasan025
45
Hasan025 2026.05.20 07:42 

Can anyone guide?

I have subscribed this provider by my trades are not copying in XAUUSD pair?

Am i missing something?

Ahmad Zehour
589
Ahmad Zehour 2026.04.10 18:56 

The GoldWave signal linked to the GoldWave EA started off performing well in the early phase. At that time, results were consistent and seemed aligned with prevailing market conditions, which likely supported its initial performance.

However, over the last month (March) and continuing into the current period, the behavior has noticeably changed. The consistency is no longer the same, and performance appears less stable compared to the earlier phase. This raises concerns about how well the strategy adapts to evolving market conditions.

From a cost perspective, the subscription pricing has also been increasing, which makes it harder to justify, especially for smaller accounts. In my view, it may not be suitable for accounts below roughly $3,000–$5,000, as the risk exposure relative to account size becomes less efficient.

Even for larger accounts, while the risk remains manageable for now, there is still uncertainty. A single strong adverse move or a drawdown period could potentially erase a significant portion of gains, depending on position sizing and market conditions.

Overall, while the system showed promise initially, the recent performance changes combined with increasing subscription costs make the risk-to-reward balance less attractive in my opinion.