same window · same costs · same engine
Momentum vs Momentum Funding
Backtested on the same Hyperliquid perps over 2024-08-15 → 2026-09-29, at the same costs and on the same engine: Momentum Funding wins on risk-adjusted return, a Sharpe of 1.90 against 1.17. Momentum Funding rode out the shallower worst drawdown (17%), and Momentum made the most in total. When Bitcoin was trending up, Momentum gained more; when it was falling, Momentum Funding held up better.
By Keel Research Team · Data as of 2026-09-29 · how these backtests were produced
Momentum Momentum Fundinggrowth of $100, net of costs
- Net Sharpe
- 1.17
- Total return
- +151.0%
- Max drawdown
- −38.8%
- Trades
- 1,243
- Win rate
- 49%
Momentum Fundingwinner
- Net Sharpe
- 1.90
- Total return
- +124.2%
- Max drawdown
- −16.6%
- Trades
- 7,355
- Win rate
- 49%
Run the winner — Momentum Funding
Momentum Funding came out ahead here (Sharpe 1.90 vs 1.17). Start it on your own Hyperliquid account, or fork it and change the settings first.
At $1,000, Momentum Funding's worst historical dip was about $166. Free account, your own keys — Keel only places the trades.
When each one wins
Total return while Bitcoin was trending up vs trending down (split by Bitcoin’s 100-day trend line).
| Market | Momentum | Momentum Funding | Higher return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rising Bitcoin | +176.7% | +44.8% | Momentum |
| Falling Bitcoin | -26.6% | +47.4% | Momentum Funding |
What this is: a head-to-head backtest of Momentum and Momentum Funding on the same Hyperliquid window, costs and engine — net of fees, slippage and funding. The overlay is growth of $100 (normalized), not a return promise. A higher Sharpe is not a guarantee; both strategies draw down. Past performance does not predict future results, and this is not investment advice.
Related tools
More comparisons
Supertrend vs MACD CrossoverMomentum vs Mean ReversionRSI vs StochasticMACD Crossover vs MA Crossover
Or the big question: do crypto trading bots actually work? →