Expert Advisor Review
Range Breakout EA Review MT5
Not Recommended
Early Review
MT5
XAUUSD, USDJPY, BTCUSD, US30, DE40 — session breakout
$649
Verified 31 Oct 2026
Early Review: based on a 23-month real-money record (MQL5 Signal 2271995, trading from 20 November 2024). An Early Review is for a real-money record of at least 12 but less than 24 months, with at least 300 trades. It can come out Inconclusive or Not Recommended, but not Recommended, however good the record looks: we want two years before we recommend anything. The record reaches 24 months on 20 November 2026, and we will re-check the verdict against the full record at our next quarterly re-verification after that date.
Which product this is: Range Breakout EA with Range Filters, MT5, by Jimmy Peter Eriksson (Eriksson Systems), MQL5 Market product 122237. An MT4 product also called "Range Breakout EA" (MQL5 product 87609) is sold by a different seller and is not covered here.
The Bottom Line
Not Recommended. The Robotic Trader rates Range Breakout EA Not Recommended because its profit rests on a handful of large wins. We count trades opened on the same market, in the same direction and in the same minute as one entry (it sometimes opens three together on a breakout), so the record's 2,083 trades make 1,849 entries. The 16 most profitable entries made $2,821.16, more than the account's whole net profit of $2,807.32; the other 1,833 entries lost $13.84 between them. Our methodology treats profit concentrated in a handful of trades as a fail, not a warning.
The strongest case for it is real. Its record shows no grid or martingale pattern. In the full history, no trade was opened while an earlier trade on the same market and in the same direction, opened in a previous minute, was still open; large increases in trade size were about as common after losses as after wins, and no trade stayed open as long as three days. The record is real money and nearly two years long. MQL5 and Myfxbook both show the account's history from its first trade, and the seller links it from his product page and his own site. It was net profitable in 2025 and in 2026 to date.
What the record shows overall. 2,083 closed trades made a net profit of $2,807.32 after commission and swap, with a profit factor of 1.16: for every $1 lost, the account won about $1.16. Most trades lose (41.4% won); the profit comes from fewer, larger winners. July 2026 alone made 36% of the net profit. Two of its five markets, US30 and DE40, lost money overall, and together they took 38.5% of the trades.
At its deepest, the account balance fell 34.00%, from a peak in November 2025 to a low in January 2026. The deposits and withdrawals in that window cancelled each other out, so the fall was trading losses. The sales page says "Prop Firm Ready!". We have since tested it on FTMO's own price data. In our simulation it passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase and failed the 1-Step, with its built-in daily drawdown protector on and with it off. See "Our Prop-Firm Test" below.
What would change this verdict is set out in the disclosures below.
Methodology
Evaluation Methodology
We assessed Range Breakout EA as an Early Review. Its live record was 23 months old when we read it, short of the 24 months a full review needs; see how we test.
What we read:
- The signal and its full history: the live signal the product page links (MQL5 Signal 2271995), and its complete trade history exported from MQL5: 2,083 closed trades and 11 deposit and withdrawal entries, to 29 October 2026.
- The same account on Myfxbook (account 12007277), which the seller links from his site. It is the same account, so it is one record shown twice, not a second record.
- The seller's other MQL5 signals.
- The product page and its update log ("What's new").
- The seller's site, erikssonsystems.com, including its Range Breakout page.
- Reviews: MQL5 buyer reviews and the seller's replies, Trustpilot, and a web search for Forex Peace Army and other reviews.
How we counted entries: on 117 breakouts the EA opened three trades on the same market, in the same direction, in the same minute; every other entry was a single trade. We group trades opened on the same market, in the same direction and in the same minute, and treat each group as one entry. This is our stand-in for a single breakout decision (the history does not label decisions), and it avoids overstating how many decisions the profit came from. It turns 2,083 trades into 1,849 entries.
Prop-firm test. The product page says "Prop Firm Ready!", so our prop-firm test applies. We ran it on 1 November 2026, on FTMO's own data. The result is in "Our Prop-Firm Test" below. It is a separate question from the verdict and does not change it.
Note. Figures were read between 30 and 31 October 2026. They are a dated snapshot, not a live feed.
- The latest day: MQL5 hides the most recent trades from non-subscribers, so our history runs to closes on 29 October 2026.
- Drawdown: MQL5 checks open losses at intervals, so a brief deeper dip between checks may not appear in its figures.
- Our figures: figures marked "our calculation" come from the exported history. Profit figures are after commission and swap.
- What MQL5 tracking shows: that the trades came from this account. It does not show that this EA placed them, or which version or settings it ran.
- Testing: we did not test the EA ourselves.
Live Performance Data
The record that counts: "Range Breakout EA Live" (MQL5 Signal 2271995).
Real account — linked from the product page
Range Breakout EA Live
Recorded: 20 Nov 2024 – 29 Oct 2026; our calculation from the exported history (MQL5 Signal 2271995)
2,083
Total Trades
41.4%
Win Rate
1.16
Profit Factor
+$24.03 / −$14.68
Average Win / Loss
+$2,807.32
Net Profit
34.00%
Max Drawdown (balance)
AccountReal money, USD, IC Markets, MetaTrader 5, leverage 1:500. A paid MQL5 signal (49 USD a month).
DatesMQL5 shows "Started 2026.01.01", which is when the signal was registered; the earlier trades come from the account's own history before registration. The account's history begins with a deposit on 19 November 2024 and a first trade on 20 November 2024.
Cash flowsOpening deposit $1,000; further deposits $1,578.52; withdrawals $1,502.43. Those and the closed profit to 29 October come to $3,883.41. MQL5 showed a balance of $3,879.48 on 31 October 2026. The $3.93 difference is presumably trades closed on 30 October, which are not in our history.
Growth figuresMQL5 shows 339.43%, Myfxbook 308.49%, and the sales page "+300% Live Growth". Both services adjust growth for deposits and withdrawals, each in its own way, and their figures differ; we have not reconciled them. We use the plain sum of closed trades, the net profit above, which deposits and withdrawals do not affect.
Drawdown, by sourceEach source measures against a different base, and possibly a different period, so the percentages are not directly comparable.
- Ours: the account balance fell 34.00%, from $1,506.14 on 14 November 2025 to $994.00 on 23 January 2026 ($512.14). The deposits and withdrawals in that window (22 and 29 December 2025) cancelled out, so the fall was trading losses. An earlier withdrawal of $500 (30 September 2025) had made the balance smaller, which makes the same dollar fall a larger percentage. Myfxbook shows the same 34.00%.
- As a chain of returns: measured as a chain of returns (each closed trade's result divided by the balance at that moment, so deposits and withdrawals drop out), the same window, 14 November 2025 to 23 January 2026, gives 28.29% (our calculation). That matches MQL5's relative drawdown by balance, 28.29% ($512.14).
- MQL5's other figures: MQL5 also shows a maximal drawdown by balance of 25.53% ($512.56) and a relative drawdown by equity of 8.96% ($187.04). MQL5 does not date them, and its figures, read on 31 October, may include 30 October trades. MQL5 has monitored equity live only since the signal was registered on 1 January 2026, so its equity figure does not cover the earlier months.
Per tradeExpected payoff $1.35 (MQL5 showed $1.34 on 31 October 2026). Best trade +$238.92; worst −$141.96. 862 won, 1,220 lost, 1 closed flat.
Losing runsOur calculation: longest run 17 losses (−$171.33); costliest run 12 losses (−$250.01). MQL5 shows a longest run of 17 losses and a costliest run of −$249.62.
Activity21 trades a week (MQL5); average holding time 7 hours (our calculation).
By year (closed profit)2024 (from 20 November) −$127.80; 2025 +$909.95; 2026 to 29 October +$2,025.17.
By month9 of 24 calendar months lost money (counting November 2024 and October 2026, both part-months), including February, April and May 2026. The best month, July 2026, made +$1,008.23.
Lot sizes0.01 to 0.50 (our calculation).
SettingsThe signal does not state which risk setting it runs (Low, Medium or High, a manual percentage, or a fixed lot).
View the signal →
Other records. The seller's MQL5 profile lists 15 signals. Only this one is named for Range Breakout EA, and we found none among the others presented as this EA; we could not check whether an older signal once was. The product page also links a "Main Portfolio" signal, which runs several of his EAs together, so it is not a record of this one. The same account appears on Myfxbook (12007277).
Where the Profit Comes From
By market (our calculation):
| Market | Trades | Net profit |
|---|---|---|
| XAUUSD (gold) | 313 | +$1,557.04 |
| USDJPY | 593 | +$1,136.84 |
| BTCUSD | 375 | +$342.30 |
| US30 | 410 | −$31.09 |
| DE40 | 392 | −$197.77 |
Gold and USDJPY made $2,693.88 between them, 96% of the net profit, and BTCUSD added $342.30. US30 and DE40 together took 802 trades and lost $228.86.
By entry (1,849 entries; our calculation):
Top 10The 10 most profitable entries made $2,114.29, which is 75.3% of the net profit.
Top 1%The top 1% (19 entries) made $3,126.89, which is 111.4% of it.
Top 16the 16 most profitable entries made $2,821.16, more than the whole net profit of $2,807.32. Without them, the other 1,833 entries lost $13.84.
Where they came fromThose 16 came from all five markets (USDJPY 5, gold 4, BTCUSD 3, US30 2, DE40 2). 13 of them were in 2026, and 7 since 8 July 2026. The largest single entry made $561.95 on USDJPY on 30 July 2026.
By timeMQL5's own statistic on the signal says "80% of growth achieved within 10 days … 1.41% of days". That rests on MQL5's growth measure; we measure concentration on net closed profit instead, using the entry figures above.
CostsOn average each trade made $1.35. Extra costs of $1.35 a trade, in spread, commission or slippage, would have erased the whole profit.
This is what a breakout strategy can look like: many small losses and a few large wins. But our methodology does not grade on what is typical for a style. A record whose profit comes from a handful of trades does not show a dependable edge, and with a profit factor of 1.16, there is little margin for higher costs or a quieter year.
How the EA Trades — What the History Shows
What the seller says:
StrategyIt marks the range of the Asian session, trades the breakout when London opens, and "closes positions later in the day when volatility starts to slow down".
Risk"No Martingale / No Grid". His site adds: "A stop loss on every trade."
Set-upRisk levels Low, Medium or High, or a manual risk percentage or fixed lot; a daily drawdown protector; a trade randomiser; a spread filter.
What the history shows (all 2,083 trades, our calculation):
No adding to losing positions (same market, same direction)234 trades were opened while another trade on the same market and in the same direction was open: the second and third trades of the 117 three-trade breakouts. All 234 were opened in the same minute as the first: split entries on one breakout. No trade was added in a later minute, after the price had moved. Within some groups the trades filled at slightly different prices.
No larger trade addedNo trade was larger than one already open in the same direction, and at most 3 were open at once on one market.
No martingaleWe compared each trade with the last trade closed before it on the same market. 2,078 trades had one to compare with (the first trade on each of the five markets did not). Where the earlier trade was a loss (1,223 trades; one losing trade can come before all three trades of a split entry), the next trade was at least 1.5 times larger 48 times (3.9%). Where it was a win (854 trades), 32 times (3.7%). The one remaining trade followed the only trade that closed at exactly zero. Sizes were cut to two-thirds or less 46 times after a loss (46 of 1,223, 3.8%) and 46 times after a win (46 of 854, 5.4%). So large increases were about as common after losses as after wins, and cuts were more common after wins. The largest step after a loss was from 0.01 to 0.04 lots on BTCUSD, near the smallest size allowed.
No buys and sells open togetherOn the same market.
Short holdsThe average trade lasted 7 hours, and the longest 2.86 days. 10 of the 2,083 trades closed on a later day than they opened: 6 were held overnight, closing in the early hours of the next trading day, server time (9 to 14 hours after opening), and 4 were opened on a Friday and held over the weekend (57.5 to 68.6 hours).
Stop lossesThe exported history does not include stop-loss levels, so we could not check "A stop loss on every trade". The history neither confirms nor rules it out. The worst trade lost $141.96, about ten times the average loss, and the update log for version 4.70 (17 February 2026) says gold stop losses were changed "to avoid very big losses in High volatility periods".
No grid, averaging, martingale or recovery pattern appears in the history.
Versions and Settings
The product has changed a great deal during the record. From the update log ("What's new"):
11 November 2025 (v2.10)Most inputs removed, "now fully plug & play", with automatic risk levels, randomised entries and exits, and a daily drawdown protector.
4 December 2025 (v4.0)"Added markets US30 and DE40".
18 January 2026 (v4.50)"Updated optimized inputs for better live stability".
17 February 2026 (v4.70)"Improved SL calculation on Gold to avoid very big losses in High volatility periods".
8 July 2026 (v5.0)"Optimized the strategy inputs using data from the latest market environment".
23 August 2026 (v5.20)The current version.
What that means for the record (our calculation):
US30 and DE40 were traded before version 4.0 listed them as addedThe signal traded US30 from 20 November 2024 and DE40 from 2 December 2024: 190 US30 trades and 172 DE40 trades were opened before 4 December 2025. Before version 2.10, the EA had full inputs, so the seller may have traded them with earlier versions or settings before they became built-in markets. 24 more US30 and DE40 trades were opened between version 2.10 (11 November 2025) and version 4.0, when the EA had few inputs. The history does not show which version, settings or EA placed any of them. We record this as unexplained, not as a false claim.
Since the latest input optimisationSince version 5.0 (8 July 2026), the account has made $1,237.58 from 373 trades, 44% of its net profit, in under four months. That is the account's result since that date, not a test of the settings sold today: the signal does not say which version or settings it runs, and version 5.20 has been out only since 23 August 2026.
Deposits and Withdrawals
The history records every deposit and withdrawal, and the totals match MQL5's (our calculation):
| Date | Entry |
|---|---|
| 19 Nov 2024 | +$1,000.00 (opening deposit) |
| 2 Sep 2025 | −$1.33 |
| 30 Sep 2025 | −$500.00 |
| 22 Dec 2025 | −$250.00, −$250.00, +$500.00 |
| 29 Dec 2025 | −$500.00, +$500.00 |
| 31 Jan 2026 | +$577.60 |
| 17 Feb 2026 | −$1.10 |
| 6 Apr 2026 | +$0.92 |
In total: $2,578.52 in, including the opening $1,000; $1,502.43 out. They do not affect the net profit, which is the sum of closed trades. The $500 withdrawal on 30 September 2025 does affect the drawdown percentage: it lowered the balance before the 14 November 2025 peak, so the same $512.14 fall is a larger share of that peak.
How Long Losses Stayed Open
We publish the longest, because averages hide them; see our methodology.
Longest single trade2.86 days.
Longest time below a previous high93 days, from 31 March to 2 July 2026, measured on closed profit with deposits and withdrawals left out (our calculation). This counts days until the account's results recovered, not how long any trade was open.
At our checkThe last high was on 23 September 2026, 36 days before the history ends. Open trades are not visible to non-subscribers.
Against the 90-day ruleNo loss was held open for anything like 90 days. The verdict rests on profit concentration.
What the Sales Page Says, and What the Record Shows
"No Martingale / No Grid"The full history agrees. We found no grid, averaging or martingale pattern.
"Why Range Breakout EA is so Stable ?"The sales page calls it stable, but the account balance fell 34.00% at its deepest, 9 of 24 months lost money, and the profit rests on a handful of entries. The product page gives no drawdown figure; the seller's site shows "34.0% MAX DRAWDOWN" beside the gain.
"Prop Firm Ready!"Partly. In our FTMO test it passed the 2-Step Challenge phase in simulation and failed the 1-Step, with its built-in daily drawdown protector on and with it off. Prop-firm accounts work to fixed loss limits: FTMO's 2-Step account, for example, has a daily loss limit of 5% and an overall limit of 10% of the starting capital, counting open trades. The live signal fell 34.00% from its highest closed balance to its lowest, but the signal does not say which risk setting it runs, so that figure cannot be set against a prop firm's limits. The product page's "[FTMO Results]" link opens a comment by the seller headed "FTMO RESULTS", with three images of FTMO payout and capital-allocation certificates. They do not say which EA or settings produced them, and we could not verify them either way. His site gives "$61,073 Total payouts from FTMO" across his systems, without tying them to this EA. See "Our Prop-Firm Test" below.
"+300% Live Growth"A growth figure we have not reconciled with MQL5's or Myfxbook's; we use net closed profit instead.
"23 Months Live Signal"Correct when we read it. The record spans many versions, and the latest input optimisation was in July 2026 (see "Versions and Settings").
The seller's siteAlso says "We have had single trades make fifteen times the risk" and that the system holds up "through twenty years of backtesting data". We could not check the first: the history has no stop-loss levels, so the risk taken on each trade is not known. We did not review the backtests; this review is of the live record.
Our Prop-Firm Test (FTMO)
What we tested. We found no prop-firm settings file; the developer's update notes for version 2.10 say "No set files needed anymore". The product page lists a "Daily drawdown protector (prop firm friendly, e.g. FTMO, The5ers, FundedNext)", and the developer's update notes say it "keeps you safe for prop firm trading". It sits in the EA's "Prop Firm Settings" inputs and ships switched off, with the developer's level of 4.0. Our rule is to switch a built-in prop-firm feature on at the developer's own value, so our test is version 5.20 with the protector on at 4.0. We also ran it with the protector off, as installed apart from the symbol names below, and publish both. In both runs the only other inputs we changed were the two index symbol names, to FTMO's names (US30.cash and GER40.cash). Everything else was as installed: all five markets on one chart, and risk level 1. The EA also has a built-in trade randomiser, which its update notes say randomises "entries, exits & stop loss". It has no setting, so it ran as built.
How. MT5 Strategy Tester (H1 chart), logged into an FTMO Free Trial, so the prices, spreads and commission are FTMO's own. The window was 1 January 2025 to 30 October 2026, with 99% real ticks, a £10,000 account and leverage of 1:100. Commission and swap are included in every figure below. FTMO's loss limits count open trades as well as closed ones, so we rebuilt the account's equity minute by minute from FTMO's one-minute prices. Open trades were valued at the worst price in each minute, the stricter test; for the deciding day we also show the mid-price figure as a check. A daily loss is measured from the balance at midnight Central European time (CET in winter, CEST in summer), the start of FTMO's trading day. FTMO's 2-Step has a Challenge phase (10% target, 5% daily limit) followed by a Verification phase (5% target); the 1-Step has a single phase with the same 10% target and a tighter 3% daily limit. Profit factor is gross profit divided by gross loss. A challenge phase ends when the profit target is reached with all trades closed, so we judge the limits up to the end of that day.
With the protector on:
Overall1,929 trades, +£7,769.04 (+77.7%), profit factor 1.13. FTMO's commission was £2,523.08.
TargetIts closed balance passed the 10% target (£11,000) on 21 January 2025, after 14 days of trading (FTMO's minimum is 4). One trade was still open; it closed later that evening, leaving £11,278.85 with no trades open.
2-Step Challenge phasePassed in our simulation. Up to the target, its worst day was 10 January 2025. Equity fell an estimated £457.75 below the midnight balance, or £359.63 at mid-price: £42.25 inside the £500 daily limit, or £140.37 inside at mid-price. Its lowest equity was £9,488.72, £488.72 above the £9,000 overall limit.
1-StepFailed. That same day, 10 January 2025, broke the 1-Step's £300 daily limit, on both the worst-price and the mid-price figures.
After the latest re-optimisationVersion 5.0, released 8 July 2026, "Optimized the strategy inputs using data from the latest market environment". Because this backtest applies the current, re-optimised inputs to dates before 8 July, those earlier trades may reflect that tuning, so we look separately at the trades from 8 July onward. The later versions, 5.10 and 5.20, were bug fixes. There were 342 trades from 8 July, making +£1,997.06 with a profit factor of 1.19. The balance on 8 July was £15,771.98, but trade sizes did not grow with it: the average losing trade was about £50 from 8 July, against about £54 in January to March 2025, in both runs. So we compare the later results, measured from the 8 July balance, with a £10,000 challenge's £1,000 target and £500 daily limit. This is a rebased comparison of the same run, not a separate run started at £10,000. On that basis they made a further £1,000 (the size of the 10% target), with all trades closed, by 31 July 2026. Up to then, the worst day was 20 July, when equity fell an estimated £364.11. That is inside the 2-Step's £500 but beyond the 1-Step's £300. The lowest equity was £477.03 below the 8 July balance, inside the rebased £1,000 overall limit. So the later trades also pass the 2-Step Challenge phase in this simulation, and fail the 1-Step.
Largest fall in equity (whole run, for information only)The tester reports £3,718.50 (20.78%), from a peak on 14 November 2025 to a low on 27 February 2026. That is a fall from a peak, long after the target, not a loss of the starting money.
With the protector off (as installed)1,929 trades, +£8,833.51, profit factor 1.15. It reached the target on the same day. Up to the target its worst day was also 10 January 2025: equity fell an estimated £453.45 (£362.88 at mid-price), £46.55 inside the 2-Step's £500 limit, and beyond the 1-Step's £300. From 8 July, on the same rebased basis, 343 trades made +£1,625.10 (profit factor 1.15). They reached a further £1,000 by 31 July 2026 and, up to then, had the same worst day, 20 July (−£361.48). Same result: passed the 2-Step Challenge phase, failed the 1-Step.
After the target (for information only, not part of the result)On 24 January 2025, three days after the target, equity fell an estimated £475.81 in the day with the protector on (£24.19 inside the 2-Step's £500 daily limit) and £646.22 with it off (beyond that limit). On closed trades alone, both runs lost less than £500 that day. Although the 1-Step had already failed on 10 January, its overall limit, which trails £1,000 below the highest end-of-day balance, would also have been crossed: on 11 February 2025 with the protector on, and on 17 March 2025 with it off. After the later trades' own target on 31 July 2026, equity again fell by more than £300 in a day on 25 August and 1 October 2026, in both runs.
What this shows
- Both runs got the same result: passed the 2-Step Challenge phase, failed the 1-Step. After the target the comparison cuts both ways: on 24 January only the run with the protector off went beyond the 2-Step's daily limit, but the run with it on crossed the 1-Step's trailing limit earlier (11 February against 17 March).
- Over the whole run, the run with the protector on made £1,064.47 less, and the tester's largest fall in equity was larger (20.78% against 18.76%). Because the EA randomises its trades, the two runs are not the same trades with one switch changed, so this does not isolate what the protector did.
- Four of the five markets made money in both runs. US30 lost £937.02 with the protector on and £280.65 with it off. US30 also lost money on the live signal.
- The 2-Step result rests on the first 56 trades, to 21 January 2025, and on the trades from 8 to 31 July 2026 (76 with the protector on, 77 with it off), not on all 22 months. A challenge started on another date could end differently. Because of the randomiser, another run may also take different trades, so this is one sample. It is a test of the current version on past data, not a forward test. We did not run the 5% Verification phase that follows the Challenge phase.
- It does not change the verdict, which rests on the live record.
Price and Licence Terms
Price$649 on the MQL5 Market ("Next Price: $749, Final Price: $999 (Limited Copies At Current Price)"). Version 5.20 (23 August 2026), 10 activations. A free demo is available on MQL5.
Where to buySold only on the MQL5 Market. The page showed "20 purchases per month" on 31 October 2026.
Recommended setup (product page)One chart trading all five markets, or each market on its own chart; any timeframe; a broker on "standard US trading time (GMT+2 / GMT+3)"; risk level Low, Medium or High.
UpdatesSee "Versions and Settings" above.
US brokers (FIFO, no hedging)Not established. On the signal, it never held a buy and a sell open together on one market, and wherever trades on one market opened at different times, the earlier ones always closed first. But in 72 cases, trades on one market opened in the same second and closed at different times. The exported history gives times to the second and no ticket numbers, so it does not show which was opened first, and we cannot confirm first-in, first-out order for those. The signal ran on an account that allows hedging; on an MT5 account that nets trades on the same market into one position, its split entries would combine, and we have not established how the EA handles that. US30, DE40, BTCUSD and gold are traded here as CFDs, which US retail clients cannot trade. Of its five markets, only USDJPY is certain to be offered by a US retail forex account, at leverage capped at 50:1 (the signal ran at 1:500), so results would differ from the signal's.
Prices recorded31 October 2026.
Key Evaluation Criteria
- No grid, averaging, martingale or recovery strategy: passed. Overlapping trades were split entries opened in the same minute; large size increases were about as common after losses as after wins.
- Edge: profit not concentrated in a handful of trades: failed. The 16 most profitable of 1,849 entries made more than the whole net profit.
- Edge: profit factor clear of 1.0: 1.16. Thin: extra costs of $1.35 a trade would erase the profit.
- Claims match the record: "Prop Firm Ready!" holds only partly. In our FTMO test it passed the 2-Step Challenge phase in simulation and failed the 1-Step, with its protector on or off. The sales page calls it "so Stable", but the live signal (not our test) fell 34.00% from its highest closed balance to its lowest.
- Drawdown in line with the marketing: the seller's site states 34.0%, which matches our calculation, but the product page, where buyers decide, gives no drawdown figure.
- No wipeout or near-wipeout: none in the 23-month record.
- Real-money record: 23 months and 2,083 trades. That qualifies for an Early Review but is short of the 24 months a Recommended verdict needs.
- Third-party tracked record: an MQL5 signal, also on Myfxbook, linked by the seller. MQL5 registered it on 1 January 2026; the earlier trades come from the account's imported history.
- No loss held open beyond 90 days: none; the longest trade lasted 2.86 days.
Suitability & Risks
What's Genuinely Positive
- A real-money record of nearly two years, linked by the seller and shown on MQL5 and Myfxbook.
- No grid, averaging or martingale, as the seller says, and the history confirms.
- Short holds: no trade stayed open as long as three days.
- Net profitable in 2025 and in 2026 to date.
- The seller publishes the record's drawdown on his own site.
Key Risks
- Concentrated profit: a handful of entries made more than the net profit. A year without those few large wins could be a losing year.
- Thin edge: a profit factor of 1.16 leaves little margin for wider spreads, slippage or commission.
- Two losing markets: US30 and DE40 lost money over the record and took 38.5% of the trades.
- Losing stretches: 9 of 24 months lost money, and the account took 93 days to regain one previous high.
- Versions and settings: the record spans many versions. The latest input optimisation dates from July 2026, so at most four months of the record could reflect it, and the signal does not say whether it runs it.
- Prop firms: in our FTMO test it passed the 2-Step Challenge phase in simulation (limits judged up to the target day). Its worst day's equity fell £457.75 with the protector on, £42.25 inside the £500 daily limit, and £453.45 with it off, £46.55 inside. It failed the 1-Step's 3% daily limit in both runs. We did not test the Verification phase.
Important Disclosures
Verification History
1 November 2026 — FTMO prop-firm test added. The verdict is unchanged.
- Tested: version 5.20 on FTMO's own data, 1 January 2025 to 30 October 2026, with the built-in daily drawdown protector on at 4.0, and again as installed with it off. Both passed the 2-Step Challenge phase in simulation and failed the 1-Step. Details in "Our Prop-Firm Test".
31 October 2026 — Published as an Early Review (23-month record), Not Recommended.
- What we read: MQL5 Signal 2271995 and its full exported trade history; Myfxbook account 12007277; the product page and update log; the seller's MQL5 signal list and his site; MQL5 buyer reviews and the seller's replies; Trustpilot; and a web search for other reviews.
- Not yet done: our prop-firm test. It will be added here as a dated entry.
- Our policy: we do not edit published figures to track current values. We add dated entries here instead.
What would change this verdict.
- The edge: the verdict rests on profit concentration. If, over a longer record, the profit comes from a broad spread of trades and not a handful, the record would no longer fail this criterion.
- The current settings: a long enough real-money record of the current version, with its settings stated, would let us judge the EA as it is sold today.
- The Early Review label: the record reaches 24 months on 20 November 2026. We will re-check the verdict against the full record at our next quarterly re-verification after that date, and remove the label.
Independent reviews
- MQL5 buyer reviews (read 31 October 2026): 35 reviews, rating 4.69. 29 give five stars, one three, and two one; three show no star rating. Many praise the seller's support.
- Critical reviews (three):
- On 21 March 2026, a buyer trading XAUUSD and USDJPY reported losses after a month and on a second try, and alleged bought reviews. The seller replied that there were "absolutely no bought reviews". We found no evidence either way.
- On 30 January 2026, a buyer (writing in Chinese; our translation) said a 10,000 account had almost been lost and was back to 10,000 that day, that the EA's US30, DE40 and USDJPY trades had very low win rates, and that he had bought three of the seller's EAs. The seller replied that the screenshots covered about two weeks, too short to judge, and that US30 and DE40 are designed for a lower win rate with larger wins.
- On 10 December 2025, a three-star review said recent updates had broken the lot-size calculation and that the seller had stopped replying. The seller replied on 17 December 2025 that, after US30 and DE40 were added, the lot calculation had behaved incorrectly on some brokers, and that a later update had fixed it.
- Trustpilot: Eriksson Systems scores 4.6 from 17 reviews. These rate the company, not this EA.
- Not found: we found no Forex Peace Army listing.
- How we use reviews: individual reviews are users' accounts, not facts we have verified, and they play no part in the verdict.
Affiliate Disclosure: We have no commercial relationship with the seller or with MQL5, and no link on this page is an affiliate link. The seller sells only through the MQL5 Market, and we found no affiliate programme for this EA. We did not contact the seller before publication; this assessment rests on material the seller, MQL5 and Myfxbook publish.
Corrections. If you are the vendor and believe a figure here is wrong, contact us at [email protected] with the evidence; we will check it and record any change in the verification history above.
Risk warning. Trading foreign exchange and contracts for difference carries a high level of risk and can result in the loss of all invested capital. Automated trading does not remove that risk; it removes the delay between a decision and its execution. Past performance, including verified past performance, is not a reliable indicator of future results. Nothing in this review is financial advice, a personal recommendation, or an invitation to trade. We are an independent publisher, not a regulated financial adviser.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Range Breakout EA a scam?
We have seen no evidence of fraud, and we do not call it one. The seller publishes a real-money signal that MQL5 shows, the same account on Myfxbook, and its drawdown on his own site. Our verdict is about how dependable its profit is, not about honesty.
Why is Range Breakout EA rated Not Recommended?
Because its profit rests on a handful of large wins. On the seller's live signal, the 16 most profitable of 1,849 entries made more than the whole net profit, and the profit factor is 1.16. Our methodology treats profit concentrated in a handful of trades as a fail.
Does Range Breakout EA use a grid or martingale?
We found no grid or martingale pattern. In the full history of 2,083 trades, no trade was opened while an earlier trade on the same market and in the same direction, opened in a previous minute, was still open, and large increases in trade size were about as common after losses as after wins. When it opened more than one trade on a breakout, it opened them in the same minute.
Why is this an Early Review?
Because the record was 23 months old when we read it. The account behind MQL5 Signal 2271995 made its first trade on 20 November 2024. An Early Review is for a real-money record of at least 12 but less than 24 months, with at least 300 trades; it can come out Inconclusive or Not Recommended, but not Recommended. The record reaches 24 months on 20 November 2026, and we will re-check the verdict against the full record at our next quarterly re-verification after that date.
Is the Range Breakout EA live signal real?
Yes. MQL5 Signal 2271995 is a real-money IC Markets account, and the same account is on Myfxbook (12007277). The seller links it from his product page and his site. MQL5 registered the signal on 1 January 2026, so the earlier trades come from the account's imported history. MQL5 does not show which version or settings placed each trade, and the signal does not state its risk setting.
Is Range Breakout EA good for prop firm challenges?
Only partly, on our test. We ran it on FTMO's own price data from January 2025 to October 2026. It passed FTMO's 2-Step Challenge phase in simulation (the first of the 2-Step's two phases; we did not test the second, Verification) and failed the 1-Step's 3% daily limit, both with its built-in daily drawdown protector on and with it off. Up to the target, its worst day's equity fell £457.75 with the protector on, £42.25 inside the £500 daily limit, and £453.45 with it off, £46.55 inside. Those are two simulated runs of one version on one firm's data; the EA randomises its trades, so another run may differ. It is not a prediction of a real challenge. The seller's "FTMO Results" link shows FTMO payout and capital-allocation certificates without saying which EA or settings produced them.
Which markets does it trade, and do they all make money?
XAUUSD, USDJPY, BTCUSD, US30 and DE40. On the live signal, gold and USDJPY made $2,693.88, about 96% of the net profit, and BTCUSD added $342.30; US30 and DE40 together lost $228.86 and took 38.5% of the trades.
What do buyers say?
On 31 October 2026 the product had 35 reviews and a 4.69 rating, with 29 five-star reviews. Three were critical: two reported losses or near-losses (one of them also alleged bought reviews, which the seller denies), and one said updates had broken the lot-size calculation, which the seller says a later update fixed.
Can I use Range Breakout EA with a US broker?
Not as tested here. On the signal it never held buys and sells together, but we cannot confirm first-in, first-out order for trades opened in the same second, and on an MT5 account that nets trades, its split entries would combine into one position; we have not established how the EA handles that. US30, DE40, BTCUSD and gold are traded as CFDs, which US retail clients cannot trade; only USDJPY is certain to be available, at leverage capped at 50:1.
Discover More EAs
For another Early Review, see our Quantum King EA review; for a breakout EA we rate Recommended, our Gold Trade Pro EA review. Our guide to backtesting an EA explains why a record with a thin edge needs more than a good-looking total. Most of the EAs we review are not Recommended.
Back to Best Expert Advisors →Evidence-led, independent reviews
© 2026 The Robotic Trader. All rights reserved.