Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation 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

Tactical Leveraged Trend RotationFifty-Two Week High Leaderboard
Worst drop (max drawdown)-29.4%-34.5%
Yearly growth (CAGR)+18.2%+16.1%
Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown)0.620.47
Return per unit of risk (Sharpe)0.840.73
Total return+428.1%+338.3%
Risk tierHigh drawdownHigh drawdown
Strategy typeMomentum rotationMomentum rotation
Period2016-10-26 – 2026-10-072016-10-24 – 2026-10-05

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

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation had the shallower worst fall (-29.4%). Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation compounded faster (+18.2% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation leads, 0.62 against 0.47; the two backtests cover different periods, so read the comparison with that in mind.

Equity curves

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation

$10,000 start, 2016-10-26 – 2026-10-07, 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, Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation or Fifty-Two Week High Leaderboard?

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation, at -29.4%.

Which earned more per unit of risk?

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation on the Calmar ratio (0.62 vs 0.47); Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation on the Sharpe ratio (0.84).

Were both tested on the same data?

Both are US stocks & ETFs strategies re-run with their current code on historical prices, over 2016-10-26 – 2026-10-07 and 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.