The Gold Reaper vs Gold Aegis Protocol, Gold Obsidian Crown and Gold Pantheon Sovereign: tested side by side

Disclosure first: I build and sell Gold Aegis Protocol, Gold Obsidian Crown and Gold Pantheon Sovereign. The Gold Reaper is another developer's EA on the MQL5 Market, and it's the benchmark I test my own work against. I ran it next to mine on identical data.

Every number below is an MT5 Strategy Tester simulation, a backtest on historical prices, run on 20 October 2026. Conditions for all runs: XAUUSD (gold priced in US dollars), IC Trading price data, a USD 5,000 deposit and 1:500 leverage, on the same PC. Drawdown means the largest fall of the account from a previous high, in percent, which is what the tester reports as relative drawdown.

A note on dates: the tester includes the start date and excludes the end date, so a window labelled 1 May to 17 October runs up to the last tick of 16 October. I use the dates as I entered them in the tester.

The settings I tested

The three EAs I sell ran their standard presets. The Reaper ran the developer's own set file (Risk 1234, Auto sizing, MaxAllowedDD 30, TradeFrequency Auto, BacktestSpeed 1), which is how the author distributes it. That file is the closest thing to a shipping default the developer publishes. Read the article's "EU-verified" presets as my own labels, not official parameter names.

• Gold Aegis Protocol: standard preset, InpRiskLevel 1.00.
• Gold Obsidian Crown: standard preset, RiskBudgetPercent 30.
• Gold Pantheon Sovereign: standard preset, InpRiskLevel 1.00.
• The Gold Reaper: the developer's set file, Auto sizing mode (Risk 1234, TradeFrequency Auto), MaxAllowedDD 30, BacktestSpeed 1.

Test 1: the recent window (1 May to 17 Oct 2026, end date exclusive)

Modelling: every tick based on real ticks, the most exact mode MT5 has. In this mode the tester uses broker-collected ticks, no simulated ticks, and the spread can change inside a minute bar.

Profit factor is gross profit divided by gross loss, so 2.0 means the winners earned twice what the losers cost. All four finished the window in profit.

In this simulated window Aegis made slightly more than the Reaper with a smaller drawdown, on almost the same number of trades. Crown made half again as much as the Reaper and took a deeper drawdown to do it. Pantheon made the most, +60.3%, and also took the deepest drawdown of the four, 19.66%. Measured as profit for each 1% of drawdown, all three of mine came out ahead of the Reaper here.

Test 2: how long each backtest took

I timed every run from start to finished report, one run at a time on the same machine.

Before you trust an EA with money, backtest it on your own broker's data, try a few risk settings and repeat the test whenever your broker or the market changes. The faster the test, the more of that you will actually do. Extrapolating the Reaper's 64-minute run by data volume to seven and a half years you would be waiting rather longer than the runs in Test 3, for the whole 2019-2026 real-tick window, well over an hour, not the few minutes the others take.

Test 3: 1 January 2019 to 1 June 2026

For this long window I used the "1 minute OHLC" model for all four EAs. Each one minute bar drives the test by its open, high, low and close only, with the tester calling OnTick about four times a minute; the intrabar path is not modelled. It's less exact than real ticks and finishes in a fraction of the time, which is why I chose it. All four get the identical model and data, so the comparison stays fair, and Test 1 already shows them on real ticks.

Balances in the millions come from compounding a growing lot size for seven and a half years. A live account would hit broker lot limits and liquidity long before that, so use the final balance only to compare the four.

Over the long window the picture is more mixed.

• The Reaper beat Aegis on growth in every calendar year, and on growth per 1% of drawdown over the whole window (5.55 against 5.23). Aegis had the smaller worst drawdown, 23.8% against 25.9%.
• Crown grew far faster than both, and its worst drawdown at standard settings, 51%, was about twice the Reaper's. That's the price of its growth, and I'd only run its standard preset if I could sit through a fall of that size.
• Pantheon had the highest growth per 1% of drawdown of the four, 7.74 against the Reaper's 5.55. The 1 minute OHLC model flatters Pantheon more than the others. I also ran its standard preset on real ticks over this window, and it made 161% a year at a 36.7% worst drawdown, against 228.6% at 29.5% on 1 minute OHLC. I have no real tick run of the Reaper over these seven and a half years to set beside it.
• None of the four had a losing calendar year in this simulation.

Test 4: each EA at its most aggressive preset

Each EA also ships a more aggressive preset, and comparing those shows how much edge each one has when it's allowed to compound harder. Same data, same deposit, same models as above.

STRATEGY TESTER RESULTS ONLY. No EA, mine or anyone else's, can compound a real account to millions or billions of dollars. Long before that, liquidity, broker lot limits, spread and slippage stop the growth, because at those sizes an EA would be trying to buy a large share of the gold traded that day. The balances below exist only inside the tester.

Return in each calendar year at these presets (simulation, 1 minute OHLC, to 1 June 2026):

What this shows, in the simulation:

• In the recent real tick window, Aegis, Crown and the Reaper all made about +82% in simulation. Aegis and Crown did it with a smaller worst drawdown than the Reaper, and Pantheon made +64.0% with the smallest drawdown of the four.
• Over 2019 to mid 2026, Aegis and the Reaper had almost the same worst drawdown, about 46%, and Aegis grew 396.6% a year against 261.3%. At standard settings the Reaper was ahead of Aegis on long-run growth, and at the aggressive presets the order reverses.
• Pantheon had the highest growth per 1% of drawdown in the long window of all four aggressive presets, with the same 1 minute OHLC caution as in Test 3.
• Crown's most aggressive preset reached a 74.7% worst drawdown. I'd only run it with money I could afford to see cut by three quarters.
• The Reaper had its strongest years from 2019 to 2023 at this preset, and its smallest gains in 2024 to 2026.

Pros and cons as I see them

Gold Aegis Protocol ($249). It had the smallest drawdown of the four at standard settings in both windows, the most profit per 1% of drawdown in the recent real tick window, and the fastest backtest of the four. It gives up some long-term growth to the Reaper at standard settings, with clearly weaker years in 2021 and 2022. At the aggressive preset it moves ahead.

Gold Obsidian Crown ($199). It has the highest simulated growth over 2019 to 2026 at standard settings, and the lowest price of my three. The cost is the deepest simulated drawdown at standard settings, about 51% over 2019 to 2026. It's the most aggressive of the four out of the box.

Gold Pantheon Sovereign ($299). It made the most in the recent real tick window and has the highest growth per 1% of drawdown over 2019 to 2026, at both standard and aggressive presets. It also had the deepest drawdown of the four in the recent real tick window, and the 1 minute OHLC model flatters it more than the others (in simulation, 161% a year at 36.7% on real ticks against 228.6% at 29.5% on 1 minute OHLC).

The Gold Reaper. It gave more growth per 1% of drawdown than Aegis and Crown over the long window at standard settings, with steady yearly results. Its own backtests are the slowest of the four, about 64 minutes for this recent real tick window against 1 to 4 minutes for the other three.

Which one I would pick

I'm biased, so weigh this accordingly. At standard settings Aegis is the closest match to the Reaper in my tests, slightly ahead in the recent real tick window and somewhat behind on long-term growth. At the aggressive presets Aegis and Pantheon both grew faster than the Reaper over 2019 to mid 2026, for the same or a smaller drawdown in this simulation. Pantheon made the most in the recent real tick window and has the highest growth for its drawdown over the long window, so I'd test it first if you want more return than Aegis.

Repeat it yourself

MQL5 states that every Market product comes with a free demo version that can be tested in the Strategy Tester; I'm relying on that general policy and haven't checked each listing myself. Use XAUUSD, a USD 5,000 deposit, 1:500 leverage, the dates and settings above, and time the runs yourself. Your broker's ticks and spreads will move the numbers. If you get something different, post your settings and your report in the comments and I will go through it with you.

To find Gold Aegis Protocol, Gold Obsidian Crown or Gold Pantheon Sovereign, search for them by name in the Market tab of your terminal.