Research · 6 min read

Do they fail together?

A portfolio of six engines is only a portfolio if the six do not lose on the same days. That is a testable claim, not a slogan, so here is the test — every pair, every trading day, from the same daily record published on the calendar.

Every pair, measured

Each cell is the correlation of two engines’ daily results, calculated only on days when both were running. 1.00 would mean they move as one. 0.00 means knowing what one did tells you nothing about the other. Below zero — green — means one tends to be up when the other is down.

CoilIrisApertureRiftRipple
Vault0.130.150.160.080.09
Coil0.040.000.100.12
Iris0.570.150.22
Aperture0.060.25
Rift0.13

Hover a cell for the number of shared days and how often the pair was down together. Pairs with fewer than 30 shared days are left blank rather than shown as a number that cannot carry weight.

0.15Average correlation across all 15 pairs
0.00Loosest pair — Coil and Aperture
0.57Tightest pair — Iris and Aperture
7%Of days with five or more engines running, every one of them lost

An average of 0.15 is the number that matters. These engines are not six versions of the same idea wearing different names — on most days, what one does tells you very little about what the others did. That is the entire mechanical argument for running a book instead of a single strategy, and it is measurable rather than asserted.

One pair stands out and it would be dishonest to bury it. Iris and Aperture move together at 0.57 and were down together on 34% of their 155 shared days. That is not a coincidence: they read the same kind of setup, in the same session, on two closely related index markets. Running both is closer to one position than two, and anyone building a book from these engines should size that pair as a single bet rather than a pair of independent ones.

The same thing, day by day

Numbers hide the texture. Below, every trading day in the published record is a row and every engine is a column: green for a winning day, red for a losing one, brighter with size. The faint columns at the top are days before that engine started.

What to look for: a horizontal band of red running clean across the row is the book failing together. Scattered red, with green beside it on the same row, is the book doing its job.

winning day losing day not yet running the right-hand column is all six accounts added up
Vault Coil Iris Aperture Rift Ripple ALL SIX 2025-07 2025-08 2025-09 2025-10 2025-11 2025-12 2026-01 2026-02 2026-03 2026-04 2026-05 2026-06 2026-07 2026-08

How often does the whole book go red?

Of the 227 days with five or more engines running, every single engine lost on 16 of them — 7%. The worst of those days cost the whole six-account book −$1,187 (2026-07-28).

That is the number worth carrying away. A bad day for one engine is routine and happens constantly. A bad day for all six at once is rare, and even when it happened the damage landed as a few hundred dollars spread across six separate accounts rather than as one hole in one account. This is what “scale wide, not tall” means in arithmetic instead of in marketing.

What this does not prove

Correlation measured over one published window is a description of that window. In a genuine market-wide shock, things that normally have nothing to do with each other can move together, and a book of six engines is not immune to that. The figures above are backtested, they carry the limitations set out at the foot of this page, and the honest reading is “these engines were largely independent across this record” — not “these engines cannot lose together.”

It is also why the pair flagged above matters. Independence is a property to be checked and re-checked, not a badge earned once.

HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE — NO ACTUAL TRADING

HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS HAVE MANY INHERENT LIMITATIONS, SOME OF WHICH ARE DESCRIBED BELOW. NO REPRESENTATION IS BEING MADE THAT ANY ACCOUNT WILL OR IS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE PROFITS OR LOSSES SIMILAR TO THOSE SHOWN; IN FACT, THERE ARE FREQUENTLY SHARP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND THE ACTUAL RESULTS SUBSEQUENTLY ACHIEVED BY ANY PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM. ONE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS IS THAT THEY ARE GENERALLY PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT. IN ADDITION, HYPOTHETICAL TRADING DOES NOT INVOLVE FINANCIAL RISK, AND NO HYPOTHETICAL TRADING RECORD CAN COMPLETELY ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT OF FINANCIAL RISK OF ACTUAL TRADING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LOSSES OR TO ADHERE TO A PARTICULAR TRADING PROGRAM IN SPITE OF TRADING LOSSES ARE MATERIAL POINTS WHICH CAN ALSO ADVERSELY AFFECT ACTUAL TRADING RESULTS. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS RELATED TO THE MARKETS IN GENERAL OR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY SPECIFIC TRADING PROGRAM WHICH CANNOT BE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PREPARATION OF HYPOTHETICAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS AND ALL WHICH CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT TRADING RESULTS.

Every figure on this page attributed to our own engines comes from backtests produced in the NinjaTrader® Strategy Analyzer. No orders were executed in a funded account and no money was at risk. Results are one contract per account, net of commission as charged by the platform and one full tick of slippage on every contract on every trade. Simulated figures are labelled as simulations where they appear. Trading futures involves substantial risk of loss.