Lizard EA review: too little profit after costs
Verdict: after costs almost nothing is left of the gross result. Lizard made 183.99 USD across 21,524 trades after costs, leaving almost no room for normal trading friction.
| What matters | Measured result |
|---|---|
| Completed trades | 21,524 |
| Profit factor (tester report, before the commission retrofit) | 1.21 |
| Costs share of gross profit | 90% |
| Negative calendar years | 10 |
The edge disappears in the real world
The strategy did not suffer a dramatic collapse in the audited history. That is not enough. Its gross gain was largely consumed by costs, and the remaining 183.99 USD is too small to support extra spread, slippage, or a slightly worse commission schedule.
Activity is not proof of value
More than twenty-one thousand trades can create the appearance of a busy, reliable system. Here the activity is the source of the problem: every trade takes a small slice from an already thin edge. A high trade count should make cost resilience more important, not less.
The profit was not broadly shared
Ten calendar years were negative, and 80% of profit came from three days. That makes the final positive balance fragile. The audit also records heavy simultaneous positioning, adding another reason to keep risk small even in a demonstration account.
A separate historical replay starting with 250 USD reached zero from 61.0% of 43,048 starting points. That result applies to the recorded trade path at that deposit and position size.
The audit covers one historical run. It does not establish repeatability, later-version performance, or live results.
The useful conclusion is simple. The historical profit does not survive enough friction to serve as an income strategy.
Every verdict lamp in the catalog is public on the audit pages. Your own tester report? The browser check is free.