You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
So here is your logic :
A fraudster is someone who is aware that they are doing something wrong. If they are unaware, yet the outcome is negative, then they are not a fraudster—they are simply someone who has made a mistake. Therefore, even with access to the code, it is nearly impossible to determine whether a person acted with malicious intent or simply made a genuine error due to a lack of experience, etc.
In my personal view, there is a lot of fraud on the Market. But that’s impossible to prove.
A fraudster is someone who is aware that they are doing something wrong. If they are unaware, yet the outcome is negative, then they are not a fraudster—they are simply someone who has made a mistake. Therefore, even with access to the code, it is nearly impossible to determine whether a person acted with malicious intent or simply made a genuine error due to a lack of experience, etc.
In my personal view, there is a lot of fraud on the Market. But that’s impossible to prove.
Nice to see that your view is that there is "a lot of fraud on this Market"
But no it's not impossible to prove, it is possible to prove with 99.8% statistical probability.
Surely that should be enough for someone at MQL5 to take interest.
But no it's not impossible to prove, it is possible to prove with 99.8% statistical probability.
Surely that should be enough for someone at MQL5 to take interest.
Post anonymized backtests on the forum, and include your own personal assessments. Perhaps something in the universe will change.
I don't understand why anybody here still believes they have a chance in trading using any of the EAs sold here.
Past performance does not guarantee future results, but still a backtest is used as a sale pitch.
I mean really, do you think a backtest will prove anything other than that the order execution inside the EA works or not?
Honestly, most if not all EAs here is made on optimized performances based on historical values.
The sale page rules are made the way that mql5 isn't responsible for any EAs sold or rented, its up to every buyer to do their own due diligence.
As many have stated here in this thread before, you need hard proof (like 100% sure) to stop any fraudulent behavior. Its almost impossible to do that since you cant see the code in the EAs sold here. Most sellers know this and keep on selling their fake EAs.
Some rules here can even be bent and still not be any proof of ill behavior.
Giving a free EA to the buyer if he/she give a 5 star review. Mind you that a review can not be changed after its made. (how many 5 stars are given after just a few days of using the bought EAs)
Having your accomplices give 5 star reviews and often a great written performance review with the 5 star.
Having accomplices post great or even fake EA performances in the comment section, this way they flood the section and bad comments gets hidden way back.
The seller floods the comment section with promotions of other EAs they sell.
Having accomplices promote a third party chat group, which is ruled by the seller. In those groups the seller have their own rules and can delete comments at their own will or even ban you.
Even a sale pitch like after a number of EAs sold the price will go up, nothing ill with this per se but it makes people do stupid choices.
There are probably more stuff, but this is just what I got on the top of my mind.
To end it all, seriously is there really anybody here that have become rich or even quit their day job because of an EA they bought here on mql5?
Sure, good idea. It's there for everyone to see then :)
This file shows the performance history of a yet unnamed EA on the MQL5 marketplace, from a standard MetaTrader 5 backtest on gold (XAUUSD) from January 2018 to October 2026: 1,479 trades, all at 0.01 lot.
This EA does not use Grid or any sort of recovery trade.
* Up to 30 July 2026 the history looks too perfect: 100 of 103 months profitable, a maximum drawdown of 1.24%, and a Sharpe ratio of 33.9. As a simple comparison, no human or machine can ever achive an information ratio above 5.
* Over those eight and a half years, its typical winning trade was about 1.7 times its typical losing trade, every single year. Winners were never once smaller than losers; the lowest ratio was 1.04.
* From 31 July 2026 the pattern flips: winners become less than half the size of losers (0.43), and the EA trades 50% more often.
* Any statistician will demonstrate that this change of character is simply impossible in real life as it divides performance in two perfect "character" camps. Sadly, a genuine strategy does not change character on a fixed calendar date, but a replayed list of known winning trades does when the list runs out.
* Ironically, the EA still made a small profit after the change (557$ without cheat vs 3532 with cheats on - ouch !), but its honest track record since the 30th of July is only 53 trades long.
* This EA - and so many others in this market - are destined to fail. No problem ! We already know the author will simply strategically plull the EA from the market and not suffer any consequences for their action.
there have been threads like this every now and then since the first release of mt4. and since the same time there has been many more discussions about curve fitting, and yet threads like this continue to happen. i urge the the OP to search this site. curve fitting is a real thing, not something that some ai has dreamt up to support man made delusions.
It is up to the investor to do their due dilligence. during the process of doing this the investor will hopefully find out the extreme divergence of early results from any backtest results that were posted by the author or seller of the ea. This obvious divergence that has been mentioned by others in the thread should ring many alarm bells for even the least discerning investor.
Sure, good idea. It's there for everyone to see then :)
This file shows the performance history of a yet unnamed EA on the MQL5 marketplace, from a standard MetaTrader 5 backtest on gold (XAUUSD) from January 2018 to October 2026: 1,479 trades, all at 0.01 lot.
This EA does not use Grid or any sort of recovery trade.
* Up to 30 July 2026 the history looks too perfect: 100 of 103 months profitable, a maximum drawdown of 1.24%, and a Sharpe ratio of 33.9. As a simple comparison, no human or machine can ever achive an information ratio above 5.
* Over those eight and a half years, its typical winning trade was about 1.7 times its typical losing trade, every single year. Winners were never once smaller than losers; the lowest ratio was 1.04.
* From 31 July 2026 the pattern flips: winners become less than half the size of losers (0.43), and the EA trades 50% more often.
* Any statistician will demonstrate that this change of character is simply impossible in real life as it divides performance in two perfect "character" camps. Sadly, a genuine strategy does not change character on a fixed calendar date, but a replayed list of known winning trades does when the list runs out.
* Ironically, the EA still made a small profit after the change (557$ without cheat vs 3532 with cheats on - ouch !), but its honest track record since the 30th of July is only 53 trades long.
* This EA - and so many others in this market - are destined to fail. No problem ! We already know the author will simply strategically plull the EA from the market and not suffer any consequences for their action.
Thank you for sharing this backtest, it's for the well-researched history reader EA that I now use as a specimen to test my techniques for quickly detecting other such EAs (and I did identify a few more as well, including one currently on the front page).
As others correctly pointed out, it is not a trivial task to distinguish over-optimization from having embedded history data. For this one EA, I gave the seller a lot (way too much) benefit of the doubt initially, but existence of the embedded history was proven beyond reasonable doubt by third-party reverse engineering (not allowed here, but someone did it anyway and shared some results - e.g. there's a YouTube video scrolling through this EA's decompiled code), which I then confirmed by searching Strategy Tester memory dump for non-trivial sequences of "double" type constants shown in the video (no reverse-engineering by me, just a yes/no answer on whether the data claimed by others is really in there or not - it is). I shared the reproduction instructions (using free software only) in the EA's comments section. That comment and all previous ones with actual reverse-engineered results then got deleted (understandable, but what side is MQ taking here? how about protecting the buyers instead?)
I then posted a new comment showing how this EA trades completely differently when the XAUUSD ticks data from 2025-2026 is moved to 2036-2037 (same calendar) to bypass the embedded history usage. It's not profitable then. This new comment is still in there, and will hopefully stay.
Curiously, the EA got quite a following of users who actually like it very much. The EA happened to make a profit in 2+ months since its release despite of its trades being mostly random. The trade times are literally deterministic pseudo-random, but trade direction isn't. The non-random choice of trade direction could theoretically provide an edge (even if certainly not anywhere close to what the manipulated history reading backtests show), so I actually needed the above extra test with moved history data to see that long-term there doesn't appear to be an edge. Still those users like to continue with the EA while they're in profit, so maybe simply deleting the EA from the Market would not be best. What I'd like MQ to do is require the seller to document the EA properly: history reader until July 28, 2026, and deterministic pseudo-random trade times with trade direction determined by [insert actual logic here] afterwards. Also require removal of the deliberately misleading screenshots (a growth chart "with 0.01 fix lot" that couldn't possibly be at fixed lots and uses the embedded history, and Strategy Tester report for trading by the embedded history). Ideally, also require removal of the embedded history from an update of the EA, but how would MQ check this? Not trivial even with my test techniques because the pseudo-random sequence for earlier months of 2026 doesn't have to be the same as for "2037".
This seller also has a number of Forex currency pair EAs that also exhibit deterministic pseudo-random behavior, but are described differently. Can MQ require correct descriptions there as well? Can further sales be blocked while letting existing users access the product pages?
Moreover, I am aware of two other (unpopular) sellers whose EAs appear to derive from the same codebase (one from the same country, another from a different country). There's probably a scam EA toolkit distributed somewhere.
Thank you MetaQuotes for not deleting this thread (yet). I really think you should keep it.
Oh, and last - I disagree with this thread's title that "most EAs have history reader". In my experience, it is a significant fraction, but "most" EAs here are luckily not like this. Many more are just over-optimized, some of them probably deliberately so, but without embedded histories.
Giving a free EA to the buyer if he/she give a 5 star review. Mind you that a review can not be changed after its made. (how many 5 stars are given after just a few days of using the bought EAs)
From July 31 onward, 34 of the 52 gaps between entries were exactly 25 hours or 25½ hours.