Growth-Value Style Selection vs Velocity Strength Filter

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 SelectionVelocity Strength Filter
Worst drop (max drawdown)-35.0%-27.4%
Yearly growth (CAGR)+29.5%+17.7%
Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown)0.840.65
Return per unit of risk (Sharpe)0.970.84
Total return+1211.9%+406.4%
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.

Velocity Strength Filter had the shallower worst fall (-27.4%). Growth-Value Style Selection compounded faster (+29.5% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Growth-Value Style Selection leads, 0.84 against 0.65.

Equity curves

Growth-Value Style Selection

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

Velocity Strength Filter

$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 Velocity Strength Filter?

Velocity Strength Filter, at -27.4%.

Which earned more per unit of risk?

Growth-Value Style Selection on the Calmar ratio (0.84 vs 0.65); 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.