Comparator

What if you had started in a different year? What 100 € would have become with each method tested by FiveMinute, compared with major ETFs — by starting year and holding period.

ℹ️Historical study — simulation. Results computed on past data (2011 → end of September 2026), on the S&P 500 of each era (including companies that later disappeared), each method with the rule of its own tab, estimated costs included (commission, Belgian stock exchange tax, spread), dividends reinvested, in dollars. Methods marked « audited » also include Belgian tax on dividends and are compared with a real S&P 500 UCITS ETF. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. 📡 Daily signals (Top 5) are not included: their starting selection cannot be tested honestly on past data; their live record is published on the History page.

Your period

Start on January 1Sold

ETF💎 Fundamental🏆 Monthly ranking🏆 + 💎 50/50Technical signals tested = how the method works│ = 100 € starting amount · left: loss · right: gain

⚠️ 🏆 Monthly ranking gained +86% between January and September 2026, an exceptional year that weighs heavily in all its results "up to today". Choose "end of 2025" to see how the methods do without that year. 💎, 🏆 and the ETFs are computed from month-end to month-end; the technical signals tested run to October 2, 2026.

By holding period

Starts tested every month since 2011. Share of cases where the method beat the reference ETF, and median difference in percentage points.

Comparison	1 year	3 years	5 years

Our takeaways

No daily technical signal beat the ETFs, whatever the starting year: with them, 100 € stayed below 100 €.

💎 Fundamental (ROE > 20%, ROA > 8%, earnings-per-share growth > 25%, P/E > 15, PEG < 1.5) was audited with everything a Belgian investor really pays (all costs, tax on dividends, purchase the next day) and compared with a real S&P 500 UCITS ETF. Result: 14.0%/yr vs 13.8% over 2011-2026, a draw. Over 5 years it beats the ETF in 90% of starts between 2011 and 2017, but only in 51% of starts since 2018: its lead comes from the period used to choose its settings (among 162 combinations tested on 2011-2016). Its drops are deeper than the ETF's (−28% vs −23%). It has been tracked live, with frozen rules, since October 12, 2026.

🏆 Monthly ranking keeps its stocks without rebalancing, letting winners run. Audited (companies that disappeared included, all costs, Belgian tax on dividends), it does worse than the S&P 500 UCITS ETF in every period without 2026 (11.4%/yr vs 13.7%): starting in 2011, 507 € at the end of 2025 vs 682 €. The year 2026 (+86% in 9 months, mostly memory and storage stocks) puts it ahead, but one year proves nothing. Its falls are sharp (−39% at worst) and it beat the ETF in only 29% of 5-year investments. It has been tracked live since October 1, 2026.

🏆 + 💎 50/50 (half in each method) has drops close to the ETF's (−25% vs −23%), smaller than either method alone. Audited, it does slightly worse than the S&P 500 UCITS ETF without 2026 (12.7%/yr vs 13.7%); starting in 2011: 596 € at the end of 2025 vs 682 €. It is a way to smooth the ride, not to earn more.

A broad, low-cost ETF remains a very hard benchmark to beat — lower costs, less effort, and often better results. How ETFs rank against each other also depends heavily on the period: the past decade strongly favoured US stocks and technology.

🔬 See every method tested, our testing rules and the full audit →

Simulation on historical data, provided for educational and information purposes only — not investment advice. All investing involves a risk of capital loss.