Ratings, badges & health score
Beyond raw performance, listings carry three trust signals: reviews from real subscribers, automatic badges for standout metrics, and a health score. This page explains what each one means and how much to trust it.
Reviews & ratings
Leaving a review
You can review a strategy only if you're an active subscriber to it (and it's not your own). This keeps reviews grounded in real usage.
- Rating - 1 to 5 stars (required)
- Comment - optional text on what worked and what others should know
You get one review per strategy. Submitting again updates your existing rating and comment rather than adding a second one.
Reading reviews
Each listing's Reviews section shows:
- The average rating and total review count
- A rating distribution histogram (from five stars down to one) you can click to filter to a specific rating
- Individual reviews with the reviewer, their stars, the date, and their comment
If a listing has no reviews yet, it says so - a low review count isn't a red flag on its own, especially for a newly published strategy.
A high star rating reflects subscriber sentiment, not guaranteed returns. Read it together with the health score, max drawdown and backtest - a well-liked strategy with a deep drawdown is still a risky strategy.
Badges
Badges are automatic performance tags shown on listing cards and the Leaderboard. Each strategy displays a single badge - the highest-priority one it currently earns.
Several badge names make a claim the underlying metric does not support. A badge awarded for a profit factor of 1.5 is a badge about one backward-looking ratio; calling it "Profit Machine" characterises a securities strategy as a reliable generator of profit.
The table below shows the metric each badge actually measures, which is what the name will say. Read the right-hand column, and treat the current name as decoration.
| Current name | What it actually measures | Renaming to |
|---|---|---|
| Best Overall | Highest health score among the listings currently shown | Top health score (this view) |
| Fastest Growing | Highest positive 90-day return among those shown | Highest 90D return (this view) |
| Lowest Risk | Smallest max drawdown among reasonably healthy strategies | Lowest drawdown (this view) |
| Elite Sharpe | Sharpe ratio ≥ 2.0 | Sharpe 2.0+ |
| Consistent | Win rate ≥ 60% over ≥ 20 trades | Win rate 60%+ (20+ trades) |
| Crowd Favorite | ≥ 50 active deployments | 50+ deployments |
| Top Rated | Average rating ≥ 4.5 | Rating 4.5+ |
| Profit Machine | Profit factor ≥ 1.5 | Profit factor 1.5+ |
| Steady | Max drawdown < 5% with ≥ 10 trades | Drawdown under 5% (10+ trades) |
The threshold badges are defensible as measurements, Sharpe ≥ 2.0 over a stated window is a fact. It is the framing that was the problem, and the framing is what changes.
How to read them
Two kinds, and the distinction changes what a badge tells you.
Cohort-relative: Top health score, Highest 90D return and Lowest drawdown are awarded relative to the listings currently on screen. As you filter or sort, which listing wins one of these changes.
It says "first among what is currently in this view", and you cannot see the view it was computed
against. This is why the renaming appends (this view), a badge whose reference set is invisible
tells you less than it appears to.
Threshold: Sharpe 2.0+, Win rate 60%+ (20+ trades), 50+ deployments, Rating 4.5+, Profit factor 1.5+ and Drawdown under 5% (10+ trades) are earned by clearing a fixed bar, so any listing meeting it keeps the badge regardless of the others. These are measurements over a stated window, and they are the ones worth reading.
Because each card shows only its single highest-priority badge, a listing can qualify for several and display one. Badges appear on cards and the leaderboard, not on the listing detail page. So a badge is never the last thing you see before allocating capital, which is the right way round.
Health score
Every listing carries a health score out of 100, a weighted composite of drawdown behaviour, return quality, consistency, trade density and a volatility-adjusted return term.
The full formula and its weights are published on How listings are selected & ranked. Read it: drawdown carries the largest single weight at 0.35, and the return term actually penalises very large returns. So health score and return are not monotonically related.
| Label rendered | Score |
|---|---|
| Excellent | ≥ 85 |
| Healthy | ≥ 70 |
| At Risk | anything below 70, including 0 |
There is no "Unrated" label. Earlier docs listed one for a score of 0. The rendering is a two-branch check: 85 or above is Excellent, 70 or above is Healthy, and anything lower is At Risk.
So a brand-new listing with no trades (which scores 0 by design, precisely so that an untraded strategy does not present as mid-tier) is labelled At Risk, not "Unrated". The score is honest; the label is misleading. A zero-score listing is not a bad strategy; it is a strategy with no live record, and its label does not say so.
And read the number, not the adjective. "Excellent" attached to a securities strategy does work the number does not. It reads as an endorsement. Health score 87/100 says the same thing without it.