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
Max drawdown-35.0%-27.4%
CAGR+29.6%+17.6%
Calmar (CAGR ÷ drawdown)0.850.64
Sharpe0.970.84
Total return+1223.0%+403.3%
Risk tierHigh drawdownHigh drawdown
Strategy typeFactorMomentum rotation
Period2016-10-21 – 2026-10-022016-10-21 – 2026-10-02

Velocity Strength Filter had the shallower worst fall (-27.4%). Growth-Value Style Selection compounded faster (+29.6% a year). On return per unit of drawdown Growth-Value Style Selection leads, 0.85 against 0.64.

Equity curves

Growth-Value Style Selection

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

Velocity Strength Filter

$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 Velocity Strength Filter?

Velocity Strength Filter, at -27.4%.

Which earned more per unit of risk?

Growth-Value Style Selection on the Calmar ratio (0.85 vs 0.64); 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.