DeployQuantGolden Cross (SMA 50/200) on TQQQ
ProShares UltraPro QQQ: 3x daily leveraged Nasdaq-100, with large trends and deep drawdowns. Backtest 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, $10,000 starting capital, computed by the same engine that runs live DeployQuant strategies.
Golden cross buys TQQQ when the 50-day average closes above the 200-day average and sells when it crosses back below. Between 2021-01-04 and 2026-10-02 that rule turned $10,000 into $15,012, a 7.33% CAGR, with a maximum drawdown of 57.35% and a Sharpe ratio of 0.38. Holding TQQQ over the same days ended at $36,585, a 25.35% CAGR, with a maximum drawdown of 80.77%. The rule gave up 18.02 points of annual return and cut the worst drawdown by 23.42 points.
The test produced three closed round trips and one open position, which makes this page about four decisions. Two of the three closed trades won. The average win was 40.48% and the average loss was 29.73%, for a profit factor of 1.95. The rule held a position on 60.4% of trading days.
Among the 12 templates run on TQQQ, golden cross ranks 11th by CAGR, ahead only of momentum breakout at 0.57%. Among the 59 ETFs tested with golden cross, TQQQ's 7.33% ranks 21st. The golden cross strategy page puts the median CAGR across all 59 funds at 2.05%, and the median for the leveraged group at 10.02%, so TQQQ sits above the first figure and below the second.
Year by year
| Year | golden cross | buy & hold |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 17.5% | 88.9% |
| 2022 | −39.6% | −78.1% |
| 2023 | 92.1% | 187.6% |
| 2024 | 57.6% | 57.1% |
| 2025 | −26.9% | 33.9% |
| 2026 | −4.3% | 54.1% |
Year by year against holding
The first nine months of 2021 are blank because the rule had not entered. The first entry came on 2021-10-19, and the year finished at 17.5% against 88.9% for holding. That gap of 71.4 points is the first example of the pattern on this page: when TQQQ rose, the rule was late or absent.
2022 was the year the rule existed for. TQQQ lost 78.1% in the engine's accounting, and golden cross lost 39.6%. It still lost heavily, because the first trade was open when 2022 began and the exit signal came only on 2022-02-25. The two months it held in 2022, January at -25% and February at -19.51%, account for the whole loss. After that the position was flat for the rest of the year, and the 38.5 point lead over holding was the largest in the table.
In 2023 the rule returned 92.1% against 187.6%. It did not re-enter until 2023-04-06, so it sat out the first three months of the recovery. In 2024 it returned 57.6% against 57.1%, a tie, and that was the only full year where it kept pace with holding. In 2025 it lost 26.9% while holding gained 33.9%, and in 2026 so far it is down 4.3% against a gain of 54.1%.
The years split into two kinds. In 2022 and 2024 the rule did better than or the same as holding. In 2021, 2023, 2025 and 2026 it trailed by 71.4, 95.5, 60.8 and 58.4 points. The 2025 gap is the most striking, since TQQQ gained 33.9% in a year that included a sharp April selloff, and the rule lost 26.9% because it was invested through the selloff and absent for the rebound. The trades section shows how.
Month by month
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.0% | 5.0% | 1.7% |
| 2022 | −25.0% | −19.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| 2023 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 6.9% | 22.4% | 18.1% | 10.4% | −6.5% | −15.4% | −7.9% | 33.2% | 15.9% |
| 2024 | 3.8% | 14.7% | 2.2% | −14.2% | 18.5% | 18.1% | −7.3% | 0.5% | 5.8% | −4.1% | 14.9% | −0.6% |
| 2025 | 4.5% | −9.3% | −23.1% | −19.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.7% | 1.2% | 15.6% | 12.7% | −6.4% | −3.3% |
| 2026 | 2.4% | −8.1% | −15.4% | 2.2% | 22.2% | −4.0% | −19.9% | 11.1% | 8.5% | 3.8% | – | – |
The monthly record
The month table reads as a rule that is either fully in or fully out. From January to September 2021 every cell is 0.0%. October 2021 returned 10.02%, November 5.02% and December 1.72%. Then January 2022 returned -25% and February -19.51%. Every month from March 2022 to March 2023 shows 0.0%, a full year in cash.
Re-entry on 2023-04-06 produced April at 6.86%, May at 22.44%, June at 18.15% and July at 10.37%. Then a run of three losing months: August at -6.46%, September at -15.41% and October at -7.88%. November 2023 was the best month in the rule's history at 33.23%, followed by December at 15.91%. 2024 opened with January at 3.77%, February at 14.66% and March at 2.16%, then April at -14.17%, May at 18.47% and June at 18.09%. July 2024 lost 7.26%, August made 0.5%, and the rest of the year read 5.84%, -4.13%, 14.86% and -0.61%.
The worst stretch is early 2025. January returned 4.51%, February -9.33%, March -23.15% and April -18.96%. The exit came on 2025-04-04, so April's loss was booked in the first days of the month. May and June 2025 show 0.0%. The rule re-entered on 2025-07-16 and made 3.67% in July, 1.23% in August, 15.58% in September and 12.68% in October. November lost 6.38% and December 3.25%.
In 2026 the monthly returns were 2.38%, -8.09%, -15.39%, 2.17%, 22.18%, -3.97%, -19.85%, 11.12%, 8.49% and 3.76% for October to date. April 2026 deserves attention. Holding TQQQ made 51.68% that month, the best of its window, and golden cross made 2.17%, because the rule sold on 2026-04-01 and did not return until 2026-05-06. It caught May at 22.18% after the entry. Holding's worst month was April 2022 at -36.68%, a month the rule spent in cash. The rule's worst month was January 2022 at -25%.
Every trade
golden cross on TQQQ made 3 closed round trips and one position still open at the end of the test, an average hold of 372 days, an average winner of 40.48%, an average loser of −29.73%, a profit factor of 1.95, a longest losing streak of 1. It held a position at the close on 60.4% of trading days.
| Entry | Entry price | Exit | Exit price | Return | Days held |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-19 | $33.47 | 2022-02-25 | $23.52 | −29.7% | 129 |
| 2023-04-06 | $12.71 | 2025-04-04 | $22.91 | 80.3% | 729 |
| 2025-07-16 | $42.14 | 2026-04-01 | $42.44 | 0.7% | 259 |
| 2026-05-06 | $68.65 | open | – | 18.0% | – |
Prices are adjusted for splits and dividends, so they sit below the quotes printed at the time. An open position is marked at the last close.
The four trades
The rule's record is four trades long, and each is worth reading.
The first entered on 2021-10-19 at $33.47 and exited on 2022-02-25 at $23.52, a loss of 29.73% over 129 days. This is the death-cross lag at work. TQQQ peaked on 2021-11-19 with the rule already holding, and the sell signal came on 2022-02-25.
The second entered on 2023-04-06 at $12.71 and exited on 2025-04-04 at $22.91, a gain of 80.25% over 729 days. It is the best trade and the reason the rule finished above its start. It held through the 37.15% drawdown of 2024-07-10 to 2024-08-07 and the 57.4% fall that began on 2024-12-16, and it sold on 2025-04-04, four days before the low of 2025-04-08 in the holding series.
The third entered on 2025-07-16 at $42.14 and exited on 2026-04-01 at $42.44, a gain of 0.71% over 259 days. The rule sold at $22.91 and bought back at $42.14, so the price at re-entry was well above the price at exit. That is the cost of the signal arriving late on the way up: the 50-day average did not climb back above the 200-day average until 2025-07-16, and TQQQ had already risen by then. The 259-day hold then went nowhere, through the weak months of late 2025 and the 15.39% fall of March 2026.
The fourth entered on 2026-05-06 at $68.65 and was still open on 2026-10-02, up 18%. It is marked at the last close.
Taking the three closed trades together, one large winner carried two weaker results. The median trade was +0.71% and the median hold was 259 days. The shortest hold was 129 days and the longest 729. With so few trades, the CAGR is dominated by one entry and one exit date, and a different date on either would have changed the headline.
Largest drawdowns
| Peak | Low point | Depth | Days to low | Recovered | Days to recover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-16 | 2026-07-29 | −57.4% | 590 | not yet | – |
| 2021-11-19 | 2022-02-23 | −48.2% | 96 | 2023-12-12 | 657 |
| 2024-07-10 | 2024-08-07 | −37.1% | 28 | 2024-12-04 | 119 |
Buy-and-hold's deepest drawdown ran from 2021-11-19 to 2022-12-28 and reached −80.8%.
The drawdowns
The rule's deepest drawdown was 57.35%, from the peak on 2024-12-16 to the low on 2026-07-29, 590 days later, and it had not recovered by the end of the window. That drawdown contains the April 2025 selloff, the whole of the flat period in May and June 2025, and the weak stretch after re-entry. The second was 48.21%, from 2021-11-19 to 2022-02-23, 96 days, recovered on 2023-12-12 after 657 days. The third was 37.15%, from 2024-07-10 to 2024-08-07, and it recovered on 2024-12-04.
Holding's drawdowns were deeper: 80.77% from 2021-11-19 to 2022-12-28, recovered on 2024-12-04 after 707 days, then 57.4% from 2024-12-16 to 2025-04-08, and 36.73% from 2025-10-29 to 2026-03-30. The rule's first drawdown peaked on the same day, 2021-11-19, as holding's. It was shallower at its low because the rule sold on 2022-02-25 and stayed out through the rest of 2022 while TQQQ kept falling to the 2022-12-28 trough.
The deepest drawdown, the one that is still open, shows the limit of a slow signal on a 3x fund. Its low on 2026-07-29 came well after the April 2025 exit. TQQQ fell 57.4% from 2024-12-16 to 2025-04-08, and the 50-day average stayed above the 200-day average until the fall was nearly over, so the rule sold at $22.91 on 2025-04-04, four days before the holding low. It then missed the rebound and re-entered at $42.14 on 2025-07-16. The weak months that followed, November 2025 at -6.38%, February 2026 at -8.09%, March at -15.39% and July at -19.85%, pushed the low to 2026-07-29. A death cross arrives after the decline has taken place. In this window the exit came late enough to book most of the loss and early enough to miss the rebound.
With trading costs
The headline run fills at the bar price. These runs charge slippage on every fill.
| Slippage per fill | CAGR | Max drawdown | Final value | Sharpe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None (headline) | 7.3% | −57.4% | $15,012 | 0.38 |
| 5 basis points | 7.3% | −57.4% | $14,952 | 0.38 |
| 10 basis points | 7.2% | −57.5% | $14,905 | 0.38 |
Slippage barely matters with four fills
The headline run fills at bar prices. With 5 basis points of slippage on every fill the CAGR was 7.26% and the ending value $14,952. With 10 basis points the CAGR was 7.2% and the ending value $14,905. The maximum drawdown went from 57.35% to 57.42% and then 57.53%. The rule made seven fills in total. At that count, costs reduce the result by well under a point of CAGR, because the rule does not trade again for months. With so few fills, the result comes from timing and friction has little to act on.
TQQQ is a liquid fund, with average daily dollar volume of $4,150,045,180, and a median minute volume of 285,787 shares. The test does not measure real fills, and a $10,000 order is small against that volume.
Changing the parameters
| Version | CAGR | Max drawdown | Round trips | Win rate | Final value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published rules | 7.3% | −57.4% | 3 | 67% | $15,012 |
| SMA 40/200 | 13.4% | −43.8% | 3 | 33% | $20,555 |
| SMA 50/150 | 14.1% | −46.4% | 3 | 67% | $21,337 |
| SMA 60/250 | 10.2% | −57.6% | 2 | 50% | $17,451 |
The 40/200, 50/150 and 60/250 versions
Three variants change the averages. SMA 40/200 returned 13.37% with a drawdown of 43.83% and an ending value of $20,555, from 3 trades and 1 win. SMA 50/150 returned 14.11% with a drawdown of 46.39% and $21,337, from 3 trades and 2 wins. SMA 60/250 returned 10.18% with a drawdown of 57.62% and $17,451, from 2 trades and 1 win. The published 50/200 returned 7.33% with a drawdown of 57.35%.
All three variants beat the published rule on CAGR, and two of them had a shallower drawdown. Before reading that as evidence for a different setting, look at what changed. With three or fewer trades per run, a change in the averages moves one or two entry or exit dates by a few weeks. A faster 40-day average or a shorter 150-day average would be expected to cross sooner, so those variants probably entered and exited earlier in some episodes, though the facts do not list their trade dates. The 60/250 setting reacts later than the published rule. These results show how sensitive a three-trade backtest is to its parameters, and they do not show that 40/200 or 50/150 is better in general. The pattern across the three, with the later-reacting setting doing worst, fits the explanation that timing at the turns is the whole result.
How TQQQ behaved
| Measure | TQQQ |
|---|---|
| Data in this test | 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02 (1444 sessions) |
| Total return, buy and hold | 291.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.1% |
| Deepest drawdown | −81.7% (2021-11-19 to 2022-12-28) |
| Up days | 54.5% |
| Average daily range | 4.74% |
| Average overnight gap | 1.78% |
| Correlation to SPY | 0.94 |
| Correlation to QQQ | 1.00 |
| Correlation to TLT | 0.09 |
| Sessions above the 200-day average | 69.5% |
| Crossings of the 200-day average | 28 |
| Falls of 10% or more from a 20-day high | 56 |
What TQQQ does to a moving-average rule
TQQQ's annualized volatility was 67.11%, its average daily range 4.74% and its deepest drawdown 81.68%, from 2021-11-19 to 2022-12-28, with a recovery on 2024-12-04. The longest drawdown lasted 762 sessions. Calendar-year returns for the fund were 90.95% in 2021, -79.07% in 2022, 198.32% in 2023, 58.22% in 2024, 34.36% in 2025 and 54.6% so far in 2026.
The fund's beta to QQQ was 3 with an R-squared of 1, and its correlation to QQQ was 1. QQQ returned 151.07% over the window, three times that is 453.22%, and TQQQ returned 291.92%. The facts give a daily-rebalanced ideal of 568.66% and a gap of -161.29 points between TQQQ and a simple tripling. By year, the gap against a tripling was +3.42 points in 2021, +18.12 in 2022, +33.9 in 2023, -18.56 in 2024, -27.96 in 2025 and -12.71 in 2026. The data does not split these into fees, compounding and tracking differences.
TQQQ crossed its 200-day average 28 times in the window and spent 69.48% of sessions above it. It had 56 episodes of a fall of 10% or more from a 20-day high, covering 478 days. The best days were 2025-04-09 at 35.25%, 2022-11-10 at 22.13%, 2022-11-30 at 13.74%, 2022-07-27 at 12.72% and 2025-05-12 at 12.07%. The worst were 2025-04-04 at -18.3%, 2022-09-13 at -16.59%, 2025-04-03 at -16.04%, 2022-05-05 at -14.93% and 2022-05-18 at -14.85%. The rule exited on 2025-04-04, the day of the -18.3% move, and was out of the fund for the 35.25% day on 2025-04-09.
The overnight log return was 97.97% and the intraday log return 32.89%, so about three-quarters of the gain arrived overnight.
Other templates on the same fund show how much the rule's choice matters. The RSI(2) snapback returned 39.31% with a 43.2% drawdown, the weekly 7% target 29.44% with 49.66%, trend plus trailing stop 25.03% with 43.94%, and the 200-day regime filter 24.95% with 36.54%. The 200-day filter uses a rule much like golden cross with one average instead of two, and it returned 24.95% with a shallower drawdown. The monthly cycle returned 21.49% with an 82.48% drawdown, SMA 10/50 17.3%, EMA 12/26 15.25%, RSI mean reversion 12.08%, the dip buyer 11.91%, and 3-month momentum 7.66%.
The rules
Hold while the 50-day average is above the 200-day; step aside when it crosses below (the death cross).
- WHEN the market opens · IF not invested AND SMA(50) > SMA(200) · THEN buy with 98% of the sleeve
- WHEN the market opens · IF invested AND SMA(50) < SMA(200) · THEN sell the whole position
A widely used trend filter. When the 50-day simple moving average is above the 200-day, the asset is in a long-term uptrend and the strategy holds. When it crosses below, the strategy moves to cash. It trades rarely, with a handful of signals per decade on an index. Its use is skipping the deepest bear markets, and it will lag some rallies.
Good for: long-horizon investors who want to hold trends but sidestep multi-year bear markets.
Watch out: crosses lag at turning points: the strategy gives back the first leg of a crash and misses the first leg of a recovery, and choppy sideways markets whipsaw it.
Golden cross on the other leveraged funds
The same rule on other leveraged funds varied widely. On SOXL it returned 45.93% with a 69.3% drawdown, from 3 round trips. On SPUU it returned 13.22%, on ROM 12.07%, on QLD 11.99%, on TECL 10.02% and on SSO 8.92%. It lost money on UST at -2.38%, FAS at -5.49% and TMF at -8.36%.
QLD tracks the same index as TQQQ at 2x, and the rule returned 11.99% on it with a 39.91% drawdown, against 7.33% and 57.35% on the 3x fund. One reading is that the extra leverage amplified both the winners and the late exits, but the facts here do not list QLD's trade dates. The test is one window with four decisions, daily rules, minute-bar fills and no margin. Prices are adjusted for splits and dividends. The results describe what the rule did on these dates and are not a forecast.
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
Did golden cross beat buy-and-hold on TQQQ?
Over 2021-01-04 to 2026-10-02, golden cross on TQQQ returned 7.3% annualized vs 25.4% for buy-and-hold: it trailed buy-and-hold by 18.0% per year, with a maximum drawdown 23.4 points shallower than holding (57.4% vs 80.8%).
How many trades did it make?
3 completed round trips over 5.7 years (7 fills), with 67% of round trips closing profitably.
How often does a golden cross happen?
On a broad index, roughly every couple of years. The backtest pages show the exact trade count for each ETF over the 2021 to 2026 window.
Golden cross vs buy and hold: which does better?
It depends on the asset and the window. Every backtest page here shows the same-window buy-and-hold comparison.
Did golden cross beat buy-and-hold on TQQQ?
No. It returned 7.33% a year against 25.35% for holding, and ended at $15,012 against $36,585. Its maximum drawdown was 57.35%, against 80.77% for holding.
How many trades did golden cross make on TQQQ?
It made 3 closed round trips and had one position open at the end, 7 fills in all. Two of the three closed trades won. The best returned 80.25% over 729 days, and the worst lost 29.73% over 129 days.
What happened to golden cross on TQQQ in 2022?
The rule lost 39.6% in 2022 while TQQQ lost 78.1%. The loss came from January at -25% and February at -19.51%, before it sold on 2022-02-25. It then sat in cash for the rest of the year.
Does changing the moving averages help on TQQQ?
In the test, SMA 40/200 returned 13.37% and SMA 50/150 returned 14.11%, against 7.33% for 50/200. SMA 60/250 returned 10.18%. Each run made two or three trades, so the differences come from a few entry and exit dates.
Why did golden cross lose money in 2025 on TQQQ?
It lost 26.9% in 2025 against a 33.9% gain for holding. The rule was invested through the March and April selloff, with monthly returns of -23.15% and -18.96%, sold on 2025-04-04, and did not re-enter until 2025-07-16.
Do trading costs matter for golden cross on TQQQ?
Very little. With 10 basis points of slippage the CAGR was 7.2% against 7.33% at no cost, since the rule made only seven fills.
Related
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.