This is excellent news -- thanks, DoCZero.

With regards to execution time of EAS versus FSB mql files -- I haven't carefully tested and compared like you have, but from comparing portfolio EAs created by EA Studio and Portfolio Maker (for FSB-generated strategies) I would certainly agree.  I think it is primarily due to the fact EA Studio can use MT4's built-in indicators.

A question -- you are exclusively using tick data, right?  Since EA Studio strategies always use Bar Opening and Bar Closing then have you considered comparing MT4's  "Every tick" versus "Open prices only" models?  I ask for selfish reasons -- I'll often use "Open prices only", but don't have the patience for "Every tick".

Because of your testing results I have more confidence in back testing -- so, I'm spending less time in Demo testing.  The past couple of weeks I've gone straight from back testing to a Real account -- which saves a huge amount of time.  And, so far, no harm -- I still have my pants on...

Thanks...

Here are four tests i've run over the last four days with custom indicators. I have shown the indicators used - so you can get an idea. Some are similar - but all have areas they dont match performance in one way or another.  I tested changing the slippage and commissions - but found I had it setup fairly correctly.

I am at the stage where I feel the custom indicators are introducing the issues - I guess the only way to tell would be start testing single indicator systems, using the custom indicators.

Popov / Others - do you have any comments , hints which may help us from this point forwards?

I had such "framework" before. It was very useful, but difficult to be used. I'm working on a way to make unified indicators between EA Studio and MT. There are several ways to be done, and I'm trying to make them work best.

It appeared that the EASL is much slower than the standard JavaScript code (because it is a black box for the V8 and cannot be optimized), so it may not be used for writing indicators directly. There is a possibility to make a code converter: JS -> MQL or MQL -> JS. or to have something in the middle. I'm not sure now how it will work, but definitely the software need a way to be customized better. You see how many future requests we have. If we make the apps more modular it will be great for every one. when we find the best way to make indicators, we will design a corresponding testing platform.

About the current custom indicators, some of them are real crap. I don't understand the users that load all indicators at once. Probably they think the more indicators the greater profit !? 

Recently professional traders requested to make modifications of EA Studio indicators to work like the Strategy Quant 4. They sent me some exported code. I agreed to check them, bu sorry for the colleagues,  it was real bullshit. I want to say that you don't have to believe to third party tools, code ... blindly.

..

Thank you for the hard work for testing the performance and indicators. If you notice a particular bug in the builtin indicators and experts, please report. I'm recently fully occupied with EASL, but will finish the current stage within two weeks. Than I'll return back to the regular EA Studio improvement and maintaining FSB Pro. 

I'm planning the development for 5 years ahead in order to make the tools even better.

Ok so here is the 3 types of MT4 options vs FSB

I'll have to do one more test with a very standard setup (probably a simple moving average cross) - report back shortly.

PT -- This is very cool.  Again, thank you.

You brought up OnTick vs OnTimer -- I think that is isolated to MT4 and unrelated to your tests.

With regards to testing all custom indicators -- there are too many combinations of settings to make this feasible -- as you say, a mammoth undertaking.  I don't mean to belittle other authors, but perhaps the task could be simplified if it was assumed the indicators authored by Popov and footon were okay.

I like your most recent post comparing MT4's Tick / Control / Open modes -- that's a nice result. Yes -- the values differ, but couldn't this be due to the fact the source of the tick data is different than your broker's data (used by Control and Open modes)?  I'm more interested in Win Ratio and the overall appearance of the equity curves, and I'd say they match pretty darn close.

How would you summarize the results so far?
It seems that things match, except when they don't...

Hi All,

I think i'm coming to the root of the problem - its not the indicators at all. It is to do with - Swap rates / slippage / commissions - and matching these settings between the 2 platforms. This really becomes obvious when you increase the time & number of trades.  I have been using 10+ years of data , and I did a test with Steve where he ran 2 years of data on an indicator (where my MT4 and FSB didnt match). I then swapped the time frames to match his time frame and both equity curves matched his.

To also check at longer timeframe - here is the same test with 8 years of data:

First of all - sorry if I worried any developer.  I still think it is highly important to make sure everything is working correctly. I will spend some time doing checks on indicators over time (but my guess is this wont be an issue).

This really highlights the importance of having all the subtle settings of both platforms matching. To be honest it isn't as simple as matching your brokerage commissions also. My broker charges me 5.5 usd per 1 lot traded. If I input this - I don't get the same results with MT4 backtest and FSB. The other thing is the spread - slippage and swap rates. These also don't match exactly what my broker is giving.  Very strange.  Here is a look at the setup between the 2 platforms (which generated the above equity curves).

So we can learn from this - I think a standard process should be:

1) Check MT4 Demo swap rates (Symbol properties in the backtester)
2) Adjust FSB Swap rates
3) Input your broker comission rates
4) put a minimal slippage
5) check the average spread on your broker (https://www.myfxbook.com/forex-broker-spreads) input that into FSB.
6) run a simple EA backtest with 5+ years of data (FSB & MT4)
7) check equity curve results between platforms.
8) Make adjustments in FSB to match MT4  (FSB is so much faster and you can tweak the settings very quickly).

One note on MT4 backtesting:  Be VERY careful with the spread setting - MT4 has a setting called "Current" and if you are testing over the weekend - the spreads are often widened greatly. This will destroy your results.

I think it would be wise to run your standard setup process (with a simple EA) almost every time you backtest - 

SO ..... to give credibility:  FSB & EAS & MT4  all execute fairly closely. Setup is critical (and not as simple as getting your brokerage info and plugging it in).