How we rank trading signal providers
The five tests, applied the same way to every provider on the board. A test is only logged as cleared when a buyer could reproduce the result themselves, with none of it resting on the provider's say-so.
The ranking rule is deliberately plain: a provider's position is its tally of clean passes across the five tests, and where two providers tie on that tally the one with stronger partial evidence sits higher. No provider's rank is nudged by advertising spend or a referral relationship — those inputs are simply not in the formula. What the formula rewards is provable substance over polished assertion, which is why a plain record you are free to pull apart will finish above a glittering one that rests on your goodwill.
The five tests
1. Sealed before the result
Every call is fingerprinted and committed to a public ledger at send-time, so it cannot be edited, re-priced or back-dated once the trade resolves.
2. A re-checkable record
A continuous, real-money history that a named outside party has reviewed, shown with return, drawdown and win rate — the whole ledger, red entries and black, not a trophy cabinet with the failures quietly cleared out.
3. Conviction grades that are calculated
An A-to-D label on every call, set by where it sits in that model's own return spread, instead of a mood word like “strong buy” that means whatever the sender wants.
4. Pricing on a public page
Every cost and trial term visible before a buyer is asked for an email or a card — no “message us for prices”.
5. Revenue that is not the click
Income from the subscription itself, not from broker referral kickbacks that quietly reward the volume of sign-ups over the quality of the call.
The five tests, turned on the whole field
Applied uniformly, the tests sort the market into types rather than brands. The grid below runs the scorecard across the provider types a reader actually runs into — the group chat, the mirror-trading room, the social caller, the aggregator — measured against the sealed desk. The pick does not win by being talked up; it wins because it is the single type that leaves no gap in the row.
Read down a column rather than across a row: the test almost nothing clears is sealed before the result, which is why it leads the list. A provider can have a genuinely strong record and still miss it, simply because the record was never frozen anywhere a stranger can re-check.
A win rate is empty without its call count
A bare percentage is a slogan, not proof. “94% accurate” with no figure beside it might be sixteen of seventeen chosen screenshots, or it might silently drop every losing week. You cannot tell the difference, and that is exactly why it is presented that way.
Set against that, look at the intraday model: 67.5% over 308 day-trade calls across 2026. The 308 is the call count — the entire run, losses included, on a continuous timeline. Now the percentage carries weight: roughly 208 of those 308 calls closed in profit and the remainder did not, and the +95% return reads against a drawdown rather than hanging in mid-air. A lower win rate with its call count is nearly always more trustworthy than a higher one without, because the count is the figure a dishonest provider cannot bend without flatly lying.
The habit to build: before you believe any win rate, ask “over how many calls, and are the losses counted?” If the answer is absent, file the number under advertising.
What the conviction grade has to mean
The third test demands a grade that is computed, not chosen. On the pick the grade is set per model, against that model's own measured returns, so it survives comparison across very different holding times:
| Model | Horizon | Grade-A threshold (per call) |
|---|---|---|
| Day Trade | intraday, inside a 0-60 minute window | 0.70% per trade |
| Multi Hour | from half a session out to two sessions | 4.50% per trade |
| Swing Trade | approximately one to four weeks | 6.00% per trade |
| Investing | long-horizon, highest conviction | long-horizon basis |
An A sits at the top band of a model's own measured returns, while D marks the lowest band still sent out. The threshold is what matters here, and it is anchored per horizon: an A on an intraday call (around 0.70% a trade) and an A on a multi-week swing (around 6.00%) each say “top band for this clock”, instead of one flat figure dragged across very different holding times. Dropping the E grade from the live product left a four-step ladder that still carries real meaning.
The grid is also why the four-model record matters even to someone who trades one clock: each grade is calibrated against its own model's spread, not flattened against a slower model's far larger moves. Force one blanket threshold across every clock and it collapses into noise: the quick calls all read as feeble and the patient ones all read as heroic, which tells a reader nothing worth knowing.
Why sealing is the test that decides it
On a slow position you have days to notice that an “entry” was quietly moved. On a fast one you have minutes — which is exactly why pre-result sealing sits at the top of the list, not the bottom. The rare combination that closes the door on retroactive editing is a reviewed multi-year record and a per-call cryptographic receipt. As of 2026 the only provider in this guide passing all five tests is the #1-ranked provider. How the sealing works, and how you check one yourself, is set out on the sealing test and the verification walkthrough.