Two US stocks & ETFs strategies from the top of the return-to-drawdown ranking, compared on the same measures: how far each fell, how fast each grew, and how much return each bought per unit of risk.
| Growth-Value Style Selection | Dynamic Factor Strength Strategy | |
|---|---|---|
| Worst drop (max drawdown) | -35.0% | -24.1% |
| Yearly growth (CAGR) | +29.5% | +18.0% |
| Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown) | 0.84 | 0.75 |
| Return per unit of risk (Sharpe) | 0.97 | 0.97 |
| Total return | +1211.9% | +417.8% |
| Risk tier | High drawdown | Moderate drawdown |
| Strategy type | Factor | Factor |
| Period | 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05 | 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05 |
Backtest = historical simulation on past prices, not real trading.
Dynamic Factor Strength Strategy had the shallower worst fall (-24.1%). Growth-Value Style Selection compounded faster (+29.5% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Growth-Value Style Selection leads, 0.84 against 0.75.
$10,000 start, 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05, SPY dashed.
$10,000 start, 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05, SPY dashed.
Dynamic Factor Strength Strategy, at -24.1%.
Growth-Value Style Selection on the Calmar ratio (0.84 vs 0.75); Growth-Value Style Selection on the Sharpe ratio (0.97).
Both are US stocks & ETFs strategies re-run with their current code on historical prices, over the same period (2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05).
All strategy backtests, lowest drawdown first
Disclosure. Backtests are hypothetical simulations on historical data. They do not include every real-world cost, are not live results, and do not guarantee future returns. Educational research only, not investment advice.