How we test and rate bots

Real money, not paper trades

Every review runs on live capital on my own accounts, usually Bybit or Binance, not a demo. Paper trading hides the things that actually cost you: slippage, funding fees, fills that don't happen, and the psychological pull to override the bot. If a verdict says a bot made or lost money, that's real money it made or lost.

A fixed test window, stated up front

Each bot runs for a defined period, usually 30 to 60 days, on a stated amount of capital. I publish the dates, the pair, the settings, and the allocation so you can judge the context. A bot that prints in a ranging month can bleed in a trending one, so I say which conditions it was tested in and where it would likely struggle.

What the rating actually means

Ratings are out of 10. They are not a vibe. A score weighs real performance in the test window, fees and total cost of ownership, how hard it is to set up and trust, and who the tool is genuinely for. A 9 would be rare. Most decent bots land in the 6 to 8 range because most bots are fine, not magic.

• 8 to 10: I'd run my own money on it and recommend it widely.
• 6 to 7.9: solid for a specific use case, with real caveats.
• 4 to 5.9: works, but something (price, reliability, fit) holds it back.
• Below 4: avoid, or only for a narrow edge case.

The affiliate part, stated plainly

Some links here are affiliate links, and I earn a commission if you sign up through them. That is how the site pays for itself. The score never bends because of a payout. I have rated bots I have an affiliate deal with below bots I don't, because the rating reflects the testing, not the commission. The full affiliate disclosure spells it out.

What would make me change a verdict

Bots change. Pricing tiers shift, features ship, platforms degrade. When something material changes, I update the review and note the date. If you think a verdict is stale or wrong, tell me on the contact page. I'd rather fix it than defend it.