Fairly compare 2 different EAs. How about 1000 different EAs? - page 4

New comment
 
Selling an EA does not necessarily mean the developer is desperate for money or unable to trade it themselves. In many cases, it's simply an additional way to monetize a well-built product. If the system works, then it makes perfect sense to take full advantage of its potential — both by using it personally and by offering it under license.

In other industries, this is perfectly normal. An architect can use their own designs for personal projects and also sell them to others. A developer can create an app they use themselves and also list it on a marketplace. Why should trading be any different?

Not everyone who sells EAs does so out of need. Sometimes it's a strategic choice: to diversify income, build a reputation, or even validate their work through public results and feedback from other users. Assuming that every seller is a "genius without capital" is a narrow view that does not reflect how this field really works.
 
Vladimir #:
The idea of ranking different EAs based on some robust profitability metrics is fantastic and totally should be implemented. But let's be real, why would anyone think these EAs are any good? I mean, seriously, why would someone sell an EA that supposedly brings in over 50% profit every year? Let's say a genius but broke trader creates this 'Holy Grail' EA and needs cash for the initial deposit to start multiplying their wealth. Would selling this golden goose really be their brightest idea to raise money?

To me, it's a 50/50 situation. If a large minority (extremely unlikely) of traders get a hold of my EA, it can help move the trading instrument my way. If a majority get a hold of it (even more unlikely), it stops working because there would be less money on the other side. In all likelihood, a retail trader selling an EA doesn't affect didley squat.

Also...

Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies

Fairly compare 2 different EAs. How about 1000 different EAs?

Oleksandr Medviediev, 2025.05.19 08:44

Fair question. The short answer is: by the time "somebody succeeded in developing a robust, stable EA yielding consistent profits" he has usually exhausted all his personal resources - including time, energy and often lifetime savings.

Selling EA becomes a way to:
 -- recover that investment
 -- diversify and scale beyond the limits of own trading capital.

While compiling this list that I'm working on (at about 430 now) I stumbled across an EA Seller who, just based reviewing Buyers (not all Buyers), made about 60,000 USD in a few months. And that's relatively risk free except for potential disputes/chargebacks.
 
As more traders exploit a market inefficiency discovered by a profitable EA, profit margins compress, reducing or eliminating the inefficiency.
 
Vladimir #:
As more traders exploit a market inefficiency discovered by a profitable EA, profit margins compress, reducing or eliminating the inefficiency.

Is this why retail trader, RoaringKitty, got hauled into a U.S. Congressional hearing over his online viral promotion of his GameStop options trades?

No. Quite the opposite. Institutional traders were angry about their losses.

 
Agreed on almost everything except the price rank linking to its performance. I test the Free EA and it works better than a 1,200$ EA. My point is that price could not represent the performance, it's just a number in author's mind.
 
Sopheak Khlot #:
Agreed on almost everything except the price rank linking to its performance. I test the Free EA and it works better than a 1,200$ EA. My point is that price could not represent the performance, it's just a number in author's mind.

Thank you for your input. The list that this thread inspired me to create will be skeletal. Price will be included as a mere note. I intend to sort it by Reviews, stars, and/or time in Market.

 
Ryan L Johnson #:

Is this why retail trader, RoaringKitty, got hauled into a U.S. Congressional hearing over his online viral promotion of his GameStop options trades?

No. Quite the opposite. Institutional traders were angry about their losses.

You’re conflating two different mechanisms. My original point was about systematic inefficiencies - like arbitrage or statistical edges - that erode as more participants exploit them (e.g., high-frequency traders crowding out a price discrepancy). This is a well-documented market phenomenon.

The GameStop saga was fundamentally different: It was a liquidity squeeze fueled by collective retail action (and institutional short positions), not an algorithmic edge being arbitraged away. The institutional backlash wasn’t about inefficiency decay - it was about losing a zero-sum bet while retail traders exploited a structural vulnerability (short interest >100%).

 
Vladimir #:
As more traders exploit a market inefficiency discovered by a profitable EA, profit margins compress, reducing or eliminating the inefficiency.

Yes - the more public the edge, the faster it fades. That’s why discretion or rotation is key in long-term EA survival.

On a brighter note, FX is massive - $7 trillion+ daily. Realistically, how many EAs ever reach the volume to tip any balance? Most are just drops in an ocean. So why bother..

 
Miguel Angel Vico Alba #:
Selling an EA does not necessarily mean the developer is desperate for money or unable to trade it themselves. In many cases, it's simply an additional way to monetize a well-built product. If the system works, then it makes perfect sense to take full advantage of its potential — both by using it personally and by offering it under license.

In other industries, this is perfectly normal. An architect can use their own designs for personal projects and also sell them to others. A developer can create an app they use themselves and also list it on a marketplace. Why should trading be any different?

Not everyone who sells EAs does so out of need. Sometimes it's a strategic choice: to diversify income, build a reputation, or even validate their work through public results and feedback from other users. Assuming that every seller is a "genius without capital" is a narrow view that does not reflect how this field really works.

Well said. Strategic monetization is often overlooked - some of us aiming both (myself definitely) trade and build a brand.

Let’s face the fact - most folks here don’t believe such EAs even exist.

So what would it take to shift that? Public proof? More transparency? Or just a few Tier-1 ⭐️ scores from MetaQuotes that actually mean something?

 
Miguel Angel Vico Alba #:
Selling an EA does not necessarily mean the developer is desperate for money or unable to trade it themselves. In many cases, it's simply an additional way to monetize a well-built product. If the system works, then it makes perfect sense to take full advantage of its potential — both by using it personally and by offering it under license.

In other industries, this is perfectly normal. An architect can use their own designs for personal projects and also sell them to others. A developer can create an app they use themselves and also list it on a marketplace. Why should trading be any different?

Not everyone who sells EAs does so out of need. Sometimes it's a strategic choice: to diversify income, build a reputation, or even validate their work through public results and feedback from other users. Assuming that every seller is a "genius without capital" is a narrow view that does not reflect how this field really works.

Valid point

Oleksandr Medviediev #:

Well said. Strategic monetization is often overlooked - some of us aiming both (myself definitely) trade and build a brand.

Let’s face the fact - most folks here don’t believe such EAs even exist.

So what would it take to shift that? Public proof? More transparency? Or just a few Tier-1 ⭐️ scores from MetaQuotes that actually mean something?

It would take sellers creating profitable EAs and selling them at a high price to dominate the first page 

They'd win -> clients would win -> metaquotes would win

(also if there were any holes in the market upload process , those getting dripped from the holes would also benefit , hypothetically)

1234567891011
New comment