Send a tool.
Get the numbers.

Why pay for a review that might not flatter you

Most tool reviews are advertising with a chart attached. They are worth nothing to a buyer, and every seller knows it — which is exactly why an honest one is worth something. If a review says a tool has a weakness and names it, the parts that say it works become believable.

So the terms are plain: a paid review can conclude the tool is bad, and it will say so. You are paying for the testing and the write-up, not for the verdict. If that is not what you want, this is the wrong service and it will save us both time to stop here.

What you get

• A backtest across several market regimes — trending, ranging and the period everything broke — rather than one flattering window.
• The settings file used, published with the review, so anyone can rerun it and get the same thing.
• The numbers that matter: profit factor, maximum drawdown, trade count and the equity curve, broken out per regime instead of averaged into one figure that hides the bad stretch.
• A written verdict that says who the tool suits and who it does not, in the same voice as everything else in the test log.
• A draft before publication. Factual corrections are welcome — a wrong setting or a misread spec gets fixed. Conclusions are not up for negotiation.

How it runs

1. You send the tool

   The .ex4/.ex5 or the source, the settings you recommend, and what it is meant for — which pairs, which timeframes, which market. Testing a scalper on daily bars and calling it broken helps nobody.

2. Scope and quote, before anything starts

   What gets tested, over which periods, and on what data. You get a fixed price up front. Nothing runs until you agree to it.

3. The testing

   Real tick data, spread and commission modelled at something a retail account actually pays. Where a result depends on a parameter, that sensitivity goes into the report — a tool that only works at one exact setting is a fact a buyer needs.

4. The write-up

   You see the draft first. Then it goes in the test log under your product's name, or into your hands privately, whichever was agreed.

What this is not

• Not an endorsement for hire. Paying gets your tool tested and written up properly. It does not buy a recommendation.
• Not optimisation. Reviewing a tool and tuning it are separate jobs, and doing both to the same tool would make the review worthless.
• Not a forward test. A review is historical unless a live period is agreed as part of the scope, in which case it takes as long as it takes.
• No signals, no managed accounts, no profit claims on your behalf.

Published or private

The default is publication in the test log, with your product named and linked, and a disclosure line saying the review was commissioned. That disclosure is not optional — a review that hides who paid for it is the thing this service exists to be an alternative to.

If you would rather keep the results to yourself, say so before the work starts. You get the same report and nothing appears anywhere. What cannot happen is deciding after the fact: a review is not published only when it turns out well.

Getting in touch

Tell me what the tool is, what it is meant to do, and what you want out of the review. A quote usually comes back the same day.

truongpmcs@gmail.com @TruongPM