Growth-Value Style Selection vs Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation

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 SelectionTactical Leveraged Trend Rotation
Max drawdown-35.0%-25.4%
CAGR+29.6%+17.8%
Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown)0.850.70
Sharpe0.970.81
Total return+1223.0%+409.3%
Risk tierHigh drawdownHigh drawdown
Strategy typeFactorMomentum rotation
Period2016-10-21 – 2026-10-022016-10-21 – 2026-10-02

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation had the shallower worst fall (-25.4%). Growth-Value Style Selection compounded faster (+29.6% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Growth-Value Style Selection leads, 0.85 against 0.70.

Equity curves

Growth-Value Style Selection

$10,000 start, 2016-10-21 – 2026-10-02, SPY dashed.

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation

$10,000 start, 2016-10-21 – 2026-10-02, SPY dashed.

Each strategy in full

Other comparisons

Frequently asked questions

Which has the lower drawdown, Growth-Value Style Selection or Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation?

Tactical Leveraged Trend Rotation, at -25.4%.

Which earned more per unit of risk?

Growth-Value Style Selection on the Calmar ratio (0.85 vs 0.70); 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 (2016-10-21 – 2026-10-02).

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.