RSI vs Stochastic
Backtested on the same Hyperliquid perps over 2024-08-15 → 2026-07-05, at the same costs and on the same engine: Stochastic wins on risk-adjusted return, a Sharpe of 1.30 against 1.05. RSI rode out the shallower worst drawdown (10%), and Stochastic made the most in total. When Bitcoin was trending up, Stochastic gained more; when it was falling, RSI held up better.
- Net Sharpe
- 1.05
- Total return
- +29.4%
- Max drawdown
- −9.6%
- Trades
- 107
- Win rate
- 61%
- Net Sharpe
- 1.30
- Total return
- +67.1%
- Max drawdown
- −16.1%
- Trades
- 322
- Win rate
- 50%
Stochastic came out ahead here (Sharpe 1.30 vs 1.05). Start it on your own Hyperliquid account, or fork it and change the settings first.
At $1,000, Stochastic's worst historical dip was about $161. 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 | RSI | Stochastic | Higher return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rising Bitcoin | +12.7% | +63.5% | Stochastic |
| Falling Bitcoin | +14.8% | +2.2% | RSI |
What this is: a head-to-head backtest of RSI and Stochastic 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.