Backtest Audit vs MetaTrader 5 & TradingView: What Is the Difference? | SAB Security
Understand what MT5 Strategy Tester and TradingView already do well — and why a fixed-price written strategy test or technical second opinion can be useful. €149.
MetaTrader 5 and TradingView are powerful backtesters. Why pay €149 for SAB Security?
Because a backtesting tool and a scoped technical review are different services. Both platforms can simulate strategies efficiently. Someone still needs to define the rules precisely, choose the right data and execution settings, and understand what the results do — and do not — establish. We offer practical help with that process, whether you have a bot or just written rules.
We do not claim that our tests are universally faster or more accurate than MetaTrader 5 using real ticks or TradingView using Bar Magnifier. The platforms may be the best tools for your task. SAB Security offers a written, problem-focused service alongside — not a replacement for — their core capabilities.
Side-by-side: software versus technical service
| Question | MT5 Strategy Tester | TradingView Strategy Tester | SAB Security · €149 |
|---|---|---|---|
| What do I supply? | An executable Expert Advisor and test settings | A Pine Script strategy, including available reusable strategies | One written, testable strategy or one existing bot/backtest, subject to agreed feasibility and data |
| What do I receive? | Simulation, optimization, and native statistics | Broker-emulator simulation, strategy report, charts | A written report interpreting your selected historical test or technical reliability issue |
| Execution realism | Multiple tick modes, including broker-supplied real ticks | Commission, slippage, limit verification and lower-timeframe Bar Magnifier | Explicit review of assumptions and limitations; we cannot reproduce unavailable order-book/queue data |
| False confidence | Still depends on EA code, datasets, settings, optimization choices | Still depends on Pine code, broker emulation, data and settings | Selected checks for lookahead, missing data, optimistic fills, fees and overfitting risk |
| Do I need coding skills? | Custom new rules commonly need an EA | Custom new rules commonly need a Pine strategy | No. You can submit precise rules in ordinary written language |
This compares common workflows, not every platform feature or a head-to-head accuracy benchmark. Official technical documentation is linked below.
Six practical reasons a technical review can add value
1. No bot required
Tell us exactly when to enter, exit and size a trade. We translate an agreed ruleset into a testable specification for one historical test. Ambiguous concepts such as “strong uptrend” must be defined before testing; we will not invent rules on your behalf.
2. Beware of simulated fills
A buy limit touched by a candle's low does not prove an order would have filled. Historical OHLC data cannot establish queue position. We disclose the assumed fill model and flag limitations instead of presenting synthetic trades as live executions.
3. Trading costs matter
Fees, spreads and slippage can transform an attractive chart. The written result explains the applicable assumptions and, where in scope and data-supported, checks selected reconciliations and costs rather than relying on a gross profit figure.
4. Lookahead and overfitting
Signals may accidentally use future information, while thresholds chosen after reading past results can invalidate a supposedly fresh test. We evaluate relevant risks. A truly untouched out-of-sample result is possible only when genuinely reserved data and an agreed test design are available.
5. Readable, evidence-based reporting
We provide defined assumptions, key metrics where calculable, selected evidence, limitations and practical next steps. If available data cannot support a statistic, we say so.
6. A second technical perspective
For an existing EA or Pine strategy, an external review may catch configuration or accounting problems in an overly attractive report. This is a scoped technical assessment, not an accredited certification or a guarantee of profitable trading.
MetaTrader 5 already does a lot
The official MT5 Strategy Tester supports Expert Advisor testing, optimization and different tick-generation modes, including “Every tick based on real ticks” using broker-provided market data. This can be more informative for sensitive intrabar order logic than simplified OHLC-only testing. We do not claim a more accurate price feed or a better tick simulator.
Our additional service: help defining a question, examining the settings and reviewing selected calculations or conclusions — not necessarily replacing the EA or the tester.
TradingView already does a lot
TradingView strategy properties include fees, slippage, order-fill settings and limit-order verification. Bar Magnifier uses lower-timeframe information for more detailed simulated fills, while Deep Backtesting can use a larger available historical period depending on data and plan. These are real features; we do not pretend they are missing.
Our additional service: compare the intended written strategy against the script, assumptions and selected report metrics; identify questions to investigate rather than claiming the platform is inherently unreliable.
Exactly what do you buy for €149?
Option A: Written strategy → historical test
- Send one objective set of entry, exit, stop and position-sizing rules, plus the instrument and timeframe.
- We check before ordering whether appropriate historical data and a testable specification are available.
- We run one agreed historical simulation within the agreed data period and assumptions.
- Receive a written report with trades, net result, win rate, maximum drawdown and caveats, where supported by data.
Option B: Existing bot/backtest → technical audit
- Share authorized code/report excerpts, a sample dataset where applicable, and your principal question.
- We agree which data, fee, fill, timing or portfolio calculations to examine.
- Receive a documented findings report with prioritized improvements.
- This does not include full rebuilding, limitless debugging or a new comprehensive test.
One option per €149 package. Multiple markets, algorithm variants, tick/order-book data, complex derivatives, exhaustive optimization and full software development may require a separate quote. No investment advice, trading signals or guaranteed returns. Final price and any applicable VAT are confirmed in writing.
Who benefits — and who may not need us?
Good fit: a person with clear ideas but no code; someone with a bot whose results seem too good; a trader who needs a documented explanation of specific reliability risks. Possibly unnecessary: a proficient MQL5/Pine developer whose tester, data, execution assumptions and validation have already been independently checked.
Send your rules for a feasibility check →
Official references: MT5 Strategy Testing · MT5 Real/Generated Ticks · TradingView Strategy Properties · TradingView Bar Magnifier · TradingView Deep Backtesting. Features checked October 2026. Brand names used only for comparison; no endorsement or affiliation.