DeployQuantEMA 12/26 Trend vs Golden Cross (SMA 50/200)
Two rule sets, 59 ETFs, one engine and one window.
Both rules are long or flat switches built on a pair of moving averages. The EMA 12/26 trend holds a fund while the 12-day exponential average is above the 26-day average. The golden cross holds it while the 50-day simple average is above the 200-day. Each buys at the open with 98% of its sleeve when the condition turns true and sells everything when it turns false. The only differences are the length of the averages and the weighting. The EMA pair reacts within weeks, and the SMA 50/200 pair reacts within months.
The test runs both on the same 59 funds, from 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, starting each with $10,000. The golden cross had the higher CAGR on 36 of the 59 funds, and the EMA rule on 23. The EMA rule's median CAGR was 2.76% and the golden cross's was 2.05%. The median max drawdown was 22.87% for the EMA rule and 21.84% for the golden cross. The EMA rule had the shallower drawdown on 30 funds.
The two medians sit close together, and the trade counts do not. The EMA rule made a median of 22 round trips per fund and the golden cross made 3. Median exposure was 59.3% for both. The EMA rule pays for its speed with many more trades, and on a fund that trends cleanly it gets in sooner and out sooner. Which one wins depends on the fund, and the split by category below shows where each did better. Everything here is hypothetical, from one window of 5.74 years, and the headline runs charge no fees.
| EMA 12/26 trend | golden cross | |
|---|---|---|
| Median CAGR (59 ETFs) | 2.8% | 2.0% |
| Median max drawdown | −22.9% | −21.8% |
| ETFs won (by CAGR) | 23 | 36 |
| Style | traders who like MACD logic but want it expressed as a simple, testable long/flat rule | long-horizon investors who want to hold trends but sidestep multi-year bear markets |
Where the gap was biggest
| ETF | EMA 12/26 trend | golden cross | gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| UVXY | −39.0% | −10.1% | 28.9% |
| SOXS | −48.4% | −24.4% | 23.9% |
| SOXL | 26.2% | 45.9% | 19.7% |
| SQQQ | −24.3% | −7.4% | 16.9% |
| FAS | 8.7% | −5.5% | 14.2% |
| EEV | −12.7% | 0.7% | 13.4% |
| REW | −18.5% | −6.7% | 11.8% |
| VIXM | −12.9% | −1.8% | 11.1% |
| SOXX | 18.0% | 28.2% | 10.3% |
| VXZ | −11.3% | −1.1% | 10.1% |
The funds with the largest gaps
The ten largest gaps in CAGR between the two rules are on volatility funds, inverse funds, leveraged funds and semiconductors. On UVXY the EMA rule lost 39.04% a year and the golden cross lost 10.09%. SOXS is next, at -48.38% for the EMA rule against -24.44%. On SQQQ the figures were -24.32% and -7.41%, on EEV -12.74% and 0.71%, on REW -18.47% and -6.71%, on VIXM -12.95% and -1.81%, and on VXZ -11.26% and -1.15%. Nine of the ten gaps favor the golden cross. Seven of those nine are inverse, volatility or bear-leveraged funds that mostly fell.
The pattern has a mechanical cause. A fund in a long decline gives a fast crossover many false buy signals, each of which loses a little or a lot before the next sell. On UVXY the EMA rule made 19 round trips and held a max drawdown of 96.01%, and the golden cross made 1 round trip with a drawdown of 51.34%. On SOXS the EMA rule made 28 round trips with a drawdown of 97.76%, while the golden cross made 3 and had a drawdown of 85.51%. The slow rule enters rarely, and it was mostly in cash while these funds fell. Buy-and-hold on UVXY returned -48.74% a year, so both rules beat holding there. On SOXS holding returned -48.27%, which the golden cross beat and the EMA rule roughly matched.
One of the ten runs the other way. On FAS the EMA rule returned 8.7% and the golden cross lost 5.49%. The EMA rule made 22 round trips and the golden cross 5, with drawdowns of 59.83% and 48.96%. FAS is a leveraged financial fund, and it is one of the few funds here where the slower signal lost money while the faster one made it. The page on EMA 12/26 on FAS has the trades and the page on the golden cross on FAS has the other side.
The other two large gaps favor the golden cross on strong sector and semiconductor funds. SOXL returned 26.2% under the EMA rule and 45.93% under the golden cross, which is above holding at 33.32%. SOXX returned 17.96% and 28.24%, against 31.11% for holding. On both, the slow rule made 3 round trips, and the EMA rule made 22. The SOXL figures show the golden cross ahead of buy-and-hold, with a drawdown of 69.3% against 65.38% for the EMA rule.
Every ETF, side by side
| ETF | EMA 12/26 trend | golden cross | EMA 12/26 trend max DD | golden cross max DD | 50/50 split | Weekly correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPY | 10.2% | 8.7% | −11.8% | −18.1% | 9.5% | 0.5 |
| VOO | 10.3% | 8.8% | −11.8% | −18.1% | 9.6% | 0.5 |
| QQQ | 7.8% | 13.6% | −23.9% | −22.2% | 10.9% | 0.58 |
| QQQM | 7.8% | 13.8% | −24.1% | −22.4% | 11.0% | 0.58 |
| QQQE | 1.9% | 7.0% | −20.1% | −21.0% | 4.6% | 0.57 |
| IWM | 0.2% | 1.1% | −34.0% | −31.0% | 0.6% | 0.56 |
| VV | 9.8% | 8.4% | −13.4% | −18.6% | 9.1% | 0.5 |
| VTV | 7.3% | 5.0% | −16.5% | −17.8% | 6.2% | 0.55 |
| VOOG | 8.9% | 9.0% | −16.8% | −21.8% | 8.9% | 0.54 |
| VOOV | 7.7% | 6.8% | −15.5% | −17.1% | 7.2% | 0.56 |
| IOO | 10.9% | 12.4% | −15.8% | −18.8% | 11.7% | 0.57 |
| EEM | 0.3% | 7.8% | −31.8% | −20.6% | 4.3% | 0.73 |
| SOXX | 18.0% | 28.2% | −34.0% | −28.8% | 23.6% | 0.62 |
| XLK | 9.8% | 15.3% | −25.6% | −19.6% | 12.7% | 0.66 |
| XLF | 5.6% | 3.6% | −24.0% | −17.9% | 4.6% | 0.47 |
| XLP | 1.2% | 2.0% | −22.8% | −14.3% | 1.6% | 0.59 |
| XLY | 2.4% | 1.4% | −21.3% | −25.6% | 1.9% | 0.48 |
| VOX | 5.8% | 11.2% | −19.4% | −20.9% | 8.7% | 0.49 |
| TQQQ | 15.3% | 7.3% | −49.9% | −57.4% | 11.6% | 0.57 |
| QLD | 10.8% | 12.0% | −38.1% | −39.9% | 11.4% | 0.58 |
| SSO | 17.3% | 8.9% | −22.9% | −36.0% | 13.5% | 0.49 |
| SPUU | 19.1% | 13.2% | −22.9% | −34.7% | 16.4% | 0.48 |
| SOXL | 26.2% | 45.9% | −65.4% | −69.3% | 37.7% | 0.6 |
| TECL | 19.8% | 10.0% | −53.5% | −58.3% | 15.4% | 0.6 |
| ROM | 17.9% | 12.1% | −42.5% | −35.1% | 15.2% | 0.63 |
| FAS | 8.7% | −5.5% | −59.8% | −49.0% | 2.8% | 0.4 |
| TMF | −13.9% | −8.4% | −65.1% | −50.1% | −10.9% | 0.33 |
| UST | −2.5% | −2.4% | −23.3% | −22.4% | −2.4% | 0.46 |
| SQQQ | −24.3% | −7.4% | −82.8% | −51.5% | −13.9% | 0.47 |
| QID | −13.6% | −6.0% | −61.6% | −48.4% | −9.4% | 0.53 |
| PSQ | −6.7% | −4.3% | −39.8% | −34.9% | −5.5% | 0.64 |
| SH | −3.9% | −2.3% | −24.6% | −28.6% | −3.1% | 0.46 |
| SDS | −6.9% | −2.3% | −39.4% | −33.4% | −4.5% | 0.37 |
| SPDN | −3.8% | −2.3% | −25.5% | −28.4% | −3.0% | 0.57 |
| SOXS | −48.4% | −24.4% | −97.8% | −85.5% | −31.8% | 0.5 |
| TECS | −29.4% | −21.0% | −87.8% | −80.0% | −24.7% | 0.4 |
| REW | −18.5% | −6.7% | −71.7% | −58.5% | −11.7% | 0.54 |
| EEV | −12.7% | 0.7% | −56.9% | −46.9% | −4.9% | 0.59 |
| TBF | 7.6% | 8.5% | −18.0% | −17.5% | 8.0% | 0.76 |
| AGG | 1.1% | 0.8% | −4.9% | −7.1% | 0.9% | 0.59 |
| BND | 1.0% | 0.7% | −5.0% | −6.9% | 0.9% | 0.58 |
| TLT | −0.7% | −2.5% | −15.9% | −20.6% | −1.6% | 0.45 |
| IEF | −0.4% | −0.3% | −10.6% | −8.5% | −0.3% | 0.54 |
| IEI | 0.9% | 1.1% | −4.2% | −5.5% | 1.0% | 0.64 |
| IGIB | 2.4% | 1.8% | −5.3% | −5.6% | 2.1% | 0.62 |
| SGOV | 3.2% | 3.2% | −0.1% | −0.0% | 3.2% | 1 |
| IAU | 12.5% | 10.8% | −15.0% | −25.9% | 11.7% | 0.82 |
| FXE | 1.3% | 0.4% | −11.6% | −8.7% | 0.8% | 0.54 |
| UDN | 1.0% | −1.1% | −9.9% | −11.1% | −0.0% | 0.5 |
| USDU | 3.2% | 3.7% | −4.3% | −8.3% | 3.4% | 0.66 |
| UVXY | −39.0% | −10.1% | −96.0% | −51.3% | −18.9% | 0.03 |
| VIXM | −12.9% | −1.8% | −58.5% | −24.8% | −6.6% | 0.47 |
| VXZ | −11.3% | −1.1% | −53.7% | −19.9% | −5.6% | 0.55 |
| RINF | −0.2% | 2.4% | −16.1% | −13.3% | 1.1% | 0.59 |
| CTA | 3.1% | 1.4% | −19.1% | −20.1% | 2.3% | 0.51 |
| KMLM | 5.1% | 1.1% | −22.0% | −25.8% | 3.2% | 0.55 |
| QAI | 2.8% | 4.3% | −7.3% | −7.6% | 3.5% | 0.53 |
| CLSE | 14.0% | 17.5% | −10.2% | −16.1% | 15.8% | 0.77 |
| ALTY | 4.3% | 1.6% | −14.4% | −13.1% | 3.0% | 0.38 |
The 50/50 split runs both templates on the same ETF in two $5,000 sleeves that start together and are never rebalanced. Correlation is of weekly equity changes.
Reading the fund-by-fund table
The table lists both rules on every fund, with the maximum drawdowns, the 50/50 split and the weekly equity correlation. A few patterns stand out.
Broad index funds divide by index. On SPY the EMA rule returned 10.2% with a drawdown of 11.84%, and the golden cross returned 8.71% with 18.13%. VOO and VV show the same ordering, at 10.34% against 8.77% and 9.84% against 8.43%. On the Nasdaq-100 funds the order reverses: QQQ returned 7.85% under the EMA rule and 13.6% under the golden cross, and QQQM returned 7.82% and 13.82%. The golden cross made 2 round trips on each of these funds, and the EMA rule made 22. Buy-and-hold on QQQ returned 16.7%, so neither beat holding, and the slow rule gave up the least.
Bond funds are quiet and close. On AGG the EMA rule returned 1.07% and the golden cross 0.78%. On BND the figures were 1.02% and 0.72%. TLT lost 0.67% under the EMA rule and 2.46% under the golden cross, against -8.23% for holding. Both rules cut the damage from the bond decline, and the faster one cut more on TLT. SGOV returned 3.21% and 3.22%, with a weekly correlation of 1, and the two max drawdowns were 0.05% and 0.02%, so the fund moved too little for either crossover to matter.
Gold and the alternative-strategy funds show smaller gaps. On IAU the EMA rule returned 12.5% with a drawdown of 14.97%, and the golden cross returned 10.79% with 25.94%, against 13.66% for holding. Among the alternatives, KMLM returned 5.11% under the EMA rule and 1.09% under the golden cross, ALTY 4.27% and 1.63%, and CTA 3.13% and 1.35%. CLSE went the other way, at 14.01% and 17.46%, and RINF lost 0.22% under the EMA rule against a gain of 2.38%. The gold fund and three of the alternatives favor the faster rule, as the category split below also shows.
The correlation column shows how similar the two rules' equity curves are. The median equity correlation was 0.55. The highest were SGOV at 1 and IAU at 0.82, then CLSE at 0.77, TBF at 0.76 and EEM at 0.73. The lowest were UVXY at 0.03, TMF at 0.33, SDS at 0.37, ALTY at 0.38 and FAS at 0.4. A low correlation means the two rules were in and out of the fund at different times, which is when combining them has the most to offer.
The 50/50 column tests that. Two $5,000 sleeves, one per rule, started together and never rebalanced. The median CAGR of the blend was 2.99%, higher than either rule's median of 2.76% and 2.05%. The median max drawdown of the blend was 18.21%, against 22.87% and 21.84%. On 38 funds the blend had a shallower drawdown than both rules alone. On SPY the blend returned 9.46% with a drawdown of 11.19%, against 11.84% and 18.13% for the two rules. On QQQ the blend returned 10.9% with 17.13%, between the 7.85% and 13.6% of the pair and shallower than both drawdowns of 23.93% and 22.23%. On SOXL the blend returned 37.72%, between the two rules.
The blend is not always a gain. On FAS it returned 2.75%, below the EMA rule's 8.7%, with a drawdown of 52.31%. On TQQQ it returned 11.62%, between 15.25% and 7.33%, with a drawdown of 44.99%. Both rules beat buy-and-hold on 22 of the funds.
Year by year, median across all ETFs
| Year | EMA 12/26 trend | golden cross | ETFs where EMA 12/26 trend was ahead |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 0.0% | 0.2% | 20 of 59 |
| 2022 | −8.3% | −3.8% | 24 of 59 |
| 2023 | 7.0% | 0.0% | 28 of 59 |
| 2024 | 1.7% | 8.4% | 5 of 59 |
| 2025 | 5.8% | 1.1% | 40 of 59 |
| 2026 | 2.8% | 0.2% | 13 of 59 |
Year by year across all 59 funds
The median fund-level return for each rule, by calendar year, shows the timing difference between them.
- 2021: EMA 0%, golden cross 0.2%. The EMA rule was ahead on 20 of the 59 funds.
- 2022: EMA -8.3%, golden cross -3.8%. The EMA rule was ahead on 24 funds.
- 2023: EMA 7%, golden cross 0%. The EMA rule was ahead on 28 funds.
- 2024: EMA 1.7%, golden cross 8.4%. The EMA rule was ahead on 5 funds.
- 2025: EMA 5.8%, golden cross 1.1%. The EMA rule was ahead on 40 funds.
- 2026: EMA 2.8%, golden cross 0.2%. The EMA rule was ahead on 13 funds.
2022 favors the slow rule on the median. The EMA rule's median was -8.3% and the golden cross's was -3.8%, though the EMA rule was ahead on 24 funds, so the median hides a split. In 2023 the order flips: the EMA rule's median of 7% against 0% is the clearest advantage the fast signal showed, and it led on 28 funds.
2024 is the single strongest year for the golden cross. Its median was 8.4% and the EMA rule's was 1.7%, with the EMA rule ahead on only 5 funds. The EMA rule's 2024 loss of ground was broad, since it led on so few funds. 2025 reverses again: the EMA rule led on 40 funds, with a median of 5.8% against 1.1%. The 2026 figures cover only part of the year.
The pattern is a clean illustration of the trade-off. Neither rule won consistently, and each year's winner depends on whether the market's turns were fast or slow. The EMA rule's strategy page and the golden cross page give the full table for each fund.
By fund type
| Fund type | ETFs | EMA 12/26 trend won | Median EMA 12/26 trend | Median golden cross |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Broad index ETFs | 12 | 5 | 7.8% | 8.7% |
| Sector ETFs | 6 | 2 | 5.8% | 11.2% |
| Leveraged ETFs | 10 | 6 | 17.3% | 10.0% |
| Inverse ETFs | 11 | 0 | −12.7% | −4.3% |
| Bond ETFs | 7 | 4 | 1.0% | 0.8% |
| Commodity ETFs | 1 | 1 | 12.5% | 10.8% |
| Currency ETFs | 3 | 2 | 1.3% | 0.4% |
| Volatility products | 3 | 0 | −12.9% | −1.8% |
| Alternative-strategy ETFs | 6 | 3 | 4.3% | 2.4% |
Category by category
The median CAGR by category shows where each rule did better.
- Broad index ETFs (12 funds): EMA 7.85%, golden cross 8.71%. The EMA rule won on 5.
- Sector ETFs (6): EMA 5.8%, golden cross 11.2%. The EMA rule won on 2.
- Leveraged ETFs (10): EMA 17.3%, golden cross 10.02%. The EMA rule won on 6.
- Inverse ETFs (11): EMA -12.74%, golden cross -4.34%. The EMA rule won on none.
- Bond ETFs (7): EMA 1.02%, golden cross 0.78%. The EMA rule won on 4.
- Commodity ETFs (1): EMA 12.5%, golden cross 10.79%. The EMA rule won.
- Currency ETFs (3): EMA 1.32%, golden cross 0.37%. The EMA rule won on 2.
- Volatility products (3): EMA -12.95%, golden cross -1.81%. The EMA rule won on none.
- Alternative-strategy ETFs (6): EMA 4.27%, golden cross 2.38%. The EMA rule won on 3.
The golden cross wins on the funds where false signals cost the most: inverse funds and volatility products, where the EMA rule lost more than the golden cross on every fund. These are funds that decline, so a rule that buys less often loses less. It also wins on sector funds and, narrowly on the median, broad index funds, where it made 2 to 5 round trips per fund. The EMA rule's category wins come on leveraged funds, bonds, currencies, the commodity fund and alternative-strategy funds.
Leveraged funds show the clearest case for a fast signal. The EMA rule's median of 17.3% is well above the golden cross's 10.02%, and the rule won on 6 of the 10 funds. The SSO pair is typical: 17.3% against 8.92%, with drawdowns of 22.87% and 35.99%. SPUU returned 19.12% and 13.22%, TECL 19.83% and 10.02%, and TQQQ 15.25% and 7.33%. The golden cross's drawdown on TQQQ was 57.35% and the EMA rule's was 49.92%.
The same speed hurts on funds with a steady drift and shallow dips. On the sector funds, XLK returned 9.84% under the EMA rule and 15.33% under the golden cross, and VOX returned 5.8% and 11.2%. On both, the golden cross made 2 or 3 round trips and the EMA rule made 23 or 24.
Trade counts and what they mean
The median round trips per fund were 22 for the EMA rule and 3 for the golden cross. Per fund, the EMA rule made between 17 and 31 round trips. The lowest, 17, was on SGOV, where the fund barely moves, and the highest, 31, was on VIXM. The golden cross made between 0 and 6 round trips on every fund, with 0 on SGOV and 6 on SH.
That difference changes the character of each rule. The golden cross is a few decisions in nearly six years, and one signal at the wrong time decides the whole result. The EMA rule is many decisions, and no single one matters as much, but together they carry a cost. A cost charged on every fill scales with the trade count, so a rule with 22 round trips pays far more of it than a rule with 3.
The page for each rule on a single fund shows the trade list. EMA 12/26 on SPY made 19 round trips and the golden cross on SPY made 2. On QQQ the counts were 22 for EMA 12/26 and 2 for the golden cross. The two trades returned 13.6% a year, against 7.85% for the 22.
Limits of the comparison
The test uses one window, 5.74 years from 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, and that window contains one large decline, in 2022. A golden cross trades a few times a decade on an index, so its record here rests on very few signals per fund, and one signal can change the ranking. The EMA rule's record rests on more trades and is less sensitive to any one of them.
The headline runs charge no fees or slippage, and the EMA rule's higher trade count means costs would reduce it more than the golden cross. Neither rule was tuned to any fund. The 50/50 blend is a simple test with two sleeves, started together and never rebalanced, and it was measured on weekly equity points. All figures are hypothetical and are not a forecast. Other pairings, such as the EMA 12/26 trend against the SMA 10/50 trend and the golden cross against the 200-day regime filter, test the same idea with different averages.
Build it from blocks (or type it in English), backtest it on 5.7 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: EMA 12/26 trend or golden cross?
On this 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02 window, golden cross produced the higher CAGR on 36 of 59 ETFs. Median CAGR: EMA 12/26 trend 2.8% vs golden cross 2.0%; median max drawdown: 22.9% vs 21.8%. Which is better depends on the asset and what you optimize for. The per-ETF table shows where each wins.
Which did better, the EMA 12/26 trend or the golden cross?
The golden cross had the higher CAGR on 36 of 59 funds and the EMA rule on 23. The EMA rule's median CAGR was higher, 2.76% against 2.05%.
Which one has the smaller drawdown?
The medians were close: 22.87% for the EMA rule and 21.84% for the golden cross. The EMA rule had the shallower drawdown on 30 of the 59 funds.
How many more trades does the EMA rule make?
The median was 22 round trips per fund for the EMA rule and 3 for the golden cross. The EMA rule made between 17 and 31, and the golden cross made between 0 and 6.
Does combining the two rules help?
In this test, a 50/50 split had a median CAGR of 2.99% and a median max drawdown of 18.21%. It had a shallower drawdown than both rules on 38 of the 59 funds. The blend used two $5,000 sleeves that were never rebalanced.
Where does the golden cross do best?
On inverse funds and volatility products, where it lost less than the EMA rule on every fund, and on sector funds. Its median CAGR on sector funds was 11.2%, against 5.8% for the EMA rule.
Where does the EMA rule do best?
On leveraged funds. Its median CAGR there was 17.3% against 10.02%, and it won on 6 of 10 funds. It was also ahead in 2023 and 2025 on the median.
Dig deeper
Backtests are hypothetical, computed by DeployQuant's engine on minute-resolution consolidated US market data (2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, $10,000 starting capital, no margin, no fees or slippage in the headline run; buy-and-hold puts 98% of the account in at the first open, as the templates do) and do not guarantee future results. Nothing on this page is investment advice. Live trading involves risk of loss.