Growth-Value Style Selection vs Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard

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.

Side by side

Growth-Value Style SelectionFifty-Two Week High Leaderboard
Worst drop (max drawdown)-35.0%-34.5%
Yearly growth (CAGR)+29.5%+16.1%
Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown)0.840.47
Return per unit of risk (Sharpe)0.970.73
Total return+1211.9%+338.3%
Risk tierHigh drawdownHigh drawdown
Strategy typeFactorMomentum rotation
Period2016-10-24 – 2026-10-052016-10-24 – 2026-10-05

Backtest = historical simulation on past prices, not real trading.

Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard had the shallower worst fall (-34.5%). Growth-Value Style Selection compounded faster (+29.5% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Growth-Value Style Selection leads, 0.84 against 0.47.

Equity curves

Growth-Value Style Selection

$10,000 start, 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05, SPY dashed.

Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard

$10,000 start, 2016-10-24 – 2026-10-05, SPY dashed.

Each strategy in full

Other comparisons

Frequently asked questions

Which has the lower drawdown, Growth-Value Style Selection or Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard?

Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard, at -34.5%.

Which earned more per unit of risk?

Growth-Value Style Selection on the Calmar ratio (0.84 vs 0.47); Growth-Value Style Selection on the Sharpe ratio (0.97).

Were both tested on the same data?

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).

Browse the backtests another way

By asset class

By strategy type

Risk-based rankings

Metric guides

All strategy backtests, lowest drawdown first

Go further

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.