I parsed every strategy on a public leaderboard this week - 37 ids from Collective2's server-rendered page, monthly tables only, no login - and recomputed each one locally before looking at any ranking.

What I recomputed: yearly monthly cells compounded against the printed YTD; annualised return as eq^(365/days)-1; the share of total log return carried by the best three months; annual return against reported max drawdown; record length; win rate against the break-even win rate implied by average win and average loss.

The arithmetic reconciles. Across 36 active strategies, every year's monthly cells compound to the printed YTD within 0.4pp, and the annual figure matches calendar-day annualisation within -1.6 to +0.2pp on the five strategies I checked by hand. That rules out "the platform cannot compute". Any criticism has to be about what the number means, not whether it adds up.

What varies (36 active):

  • 19 carry more than 70% of their total log return in the best three months. One carries 194% - outside those months the record is net negative.
  • 11 have an annual return above 2.5x the reported max drawdown.
  • 11 have less than 18 months of history behind an annualised number.
  • 3 have a win rate under 2 standard errors above break-even.
  • 14 carry no flag at all. A clean result is also a result.

Two examples, both public:

  • 152974419: 14 months, +55.6% cumulative, 49.2% annualised, 7.5% max drawdown. One month - 2026-07 at +24.1% - carries 84% of the log return. 469 trades, 91.7% win rate against a 58.3% break-even: the per-trade edge looks real, the annual figure is one month.
  • 13202557: 22 years, +6,979%, and only 12% of it in the best three months. Concentration is not the issue; a 77% max drawdown is.

The limits, since a screen is not an audit: the leaderboard is a selection - it shows winners, and the strategies that disappeared are not measured; everything is hypothetical per the platform's own disclaimer; no broker statements were seen; the edge test assumes a fixed average win and loss.

One page with the table and both examples: https://github.com/rytjy/backtest-audit-kit/raw/main/docs/c2-screen-37.pdf
Parsed table: https://github.com/rytjy/backtest-audit-kit/raw/main/docs/c2-screen-37.table.txt
Repo: https://github.com/rytjy/backtest-audit-kit