Review Methodology
How ForexCracked tests every expert advisor, indicator, and strategy before publication — with the conditions, tools, and criteria spelled out in full.
Last reviewed: April 2026
Our reviews are unusual on the free-download side of the forex web because we publish methodology openly — most "free EA" sites simply post download links with vendor copy. We don't, and this page is the public record of how our process works. Every step is reproducible: if you follow the same conditions, you should get results within 5–10% of ours.
EA Review Process
1 Source Verification handled by @Silent
Every EA we publish has a verified source. We trace each .ex4 or .ex5 file back to its origin — vendor official site, abandoned developer thread, or community redistribution where the original creator has acknowledged free use. EAs from unclear sources, or EAs we cannot trace to a verifiable origin, are not published.
2 Code Analysis
Where the file is not obfuscated, our EA specialist opens it in MetaEditor and reads the actual logic. We classify the EA into one of these strategy categories:
3 Strategy Tester Validation
Every EA is run in MT4 or MT5 Strategy Tester under these standard conditions:
| Parameter | Our Standard |
|---|---|
| Mode | Every tick (real spread) |
| Period | Minimum 12 months · 36 months for trend-followers |
| Pairs | At least one pair the vendor recommends + one they don't (robustness check) |
| Spread | Current real spread from a major broker — not demo's idealised spread |
| Slippage | 1–3 pips simulated |
| Starting deposit | $1,000 standard or $50 cent equivalent |
| Reported metrics | Max Drawdown · Profit Factor · Recovery Factor · Win Rate · Avg Trade · Trade count |
We do NOT cherry-pick the best run. If results vary across pairs, we say so.
4 Forward Demo Testing
For EAs that show enough promise to warrant attention, we run a 30-day forward demo test on a real broker connection (typically Exness, IC Markets, or BlackBull). This catches EAs that look fine in Strategy Tester but break under real spread, real execution latency, or news-day volatility.
5 Publication
The review is written by @Silent, edited by @Sam, and published with the full rating breakdown. The review explicitly notes which testing stages were completed:
Indicator Review Process
1 Repaint Test
For any indicator that claims "no repaint", we record the signal at candle close, then return after the next 5 candles to confirm the signal did not move. If the indicator repaints, we say so even when the vendor claims otherwise.
2 Logic Identification
We read the indicator's actual calculation (open-source) or its behaviour pattern (closed-source) to identify what it actually measures: RSI variant, custom moving average, divergence detection, etc.
3 Comparison Test
Every indicator we publish is compared against at least one well-known alternative on the same chart and timeframe, so readers understand what they're getting versus what already exists.
Strategy Review Process
Strategy guides are published when our strategy desk (@Rataash) has personally tested the strategy across at least 30 trades on a demo account. We require visual evidence (annotated chart screenshots) for every strategy publication.
Strategies that have only been described in theory but not personally tested are flagged as "untested theoretical" and rated separately from hands-on tested strategies.
What Gets Rejected
EAs and indicators that fall into any of these buckets are not published, even if they would generate traffic:
- Active legal action by the original vendor
- Evidence of malicious code (credential harvesting, hidden backdoors)
- Vendor explicitly requested removal in good faith
- Performance claims demonstrably false in our testing AND vendor refuses to address the discrepancy
↻ Re-Testing Schedule
| Content type | Re-validation cycle | What triggers a re-test |
|---|---|---|
| Expert advisors | Rolling 12 months | MT4/MT5 build changes · broker spread changes · reader-reported issues |
| Indicators (non-repaint claim) | Rolling 6 months | Platform updates · reader-reported repaint evidence |
| Broker reviews | Rolling 12 months | Regulatory changes · spread/fee changes · withdrawal complaints |
| Prop firm reviews | Rolling 6 months | Rule changes · payout policy changes · firm closure risk |
Re-tested pages have their Last tested: line updated and any rating changes noted in a corrections block.
Reproducibility
Every backtest result we publish includes the broker, pair, timeframe, period, spread setting, and starting balance. If you set up the same conditions on your own MT4/MT5, you should get results within 5–10% of ours. Perfect reproduction is not possible due to broker-specific historical data differences, but the order of magnitude should match.
If you reproduce a backtest and get a wildly different result, email [email protected] with your conditions and we will investigate.
Questions about our editorial standards or a specific review?