LearnComparisons › dip buyer vs RSI(2) snapback

Drawdown Dip Buyer + 8% Target vs RSI(2) Dip Snapback

Two rule sets, 59 ETFs, one engine and window — a genuinely like-for-like comparison.

Head-to-head: RSI(2) snapback won on 52 of 59 ETFs by CAGR. Median CAGR — dip buyer: 1.4% · RSI(2) snapback: 4.4%. Median max drawdown — 26.2% vs 19.5%.
dip buyerRSI(2) snapback
Median CAGR (59 ETFs)1.4%4.4%
Median max drawdown−26.2%−19.5%
ETFs won (by CAGR)752
Styleassets that sell off hard and recover — it monetizes volatility without chasing strengthliquid index ETFs with strong long-term drift; turnover is high so per-trade edges are small

Where the gap was biggest

ETFdip buyerRSI(2) snapbackgap
CLSE 5.6%6.3793117942596455e+31% 6.3793117942596455e+31%
KMLM 1.1%−100.0% 101.1%
EEV −8.0%−100.0% 92.0%
TQQQ 8.8%39.2% 30.4%
SOXL 13.3%41.8% 28.5%
TMF −29.2%−1.3% 27.9%
QID −26.6%−1.4% 25.1%
REW −33.1%−8.9% 24.2%
SQQQ −28.9%−8.4% 20.5%
VIXM −15.5%1.0% 16.5%
Run dip buyer or RSI(2) snapback yourself — free →

Build it from blocks (or type it in English), backtest it on 5.5 years of minute data in seconds, tweak any parameter, then paper trade it on live data. No card, no broker needed to start.

Frequently asked questions

Which is better: dip buyer or RSI(2) snapback?

On this 2021-01-04–2026-07-17 window, RSI(2) snapback produced the higher CAGR on 52 of 59 ETFs. Median CAGR: dip buyer 1.4% vs RSI(2) snapback 4.4%; median max drawdown: 26.2% vs 19.5%. "Better" depends on the asset and what you optimize — the per-ETF table shows where each wins.

Dig deeper

Drawdown Dip Buyer + 8% Targetrules + all 59 ETF results RSI(2) Dip Snapbackrules + all 59 ETF results

Backtests are hypothetical, computed by DeployQuant's engine on minute-resolution consolidated US market data (2021-01-04 to 2026-07-17, $10,000 starting capital, no margin, fees and slippage not modeled) and do not guarantee future results. Nothing on this page is investment advice. Live trading involves risk of loss.