A ranking is not a return leaderboard
A 50% gain over six months and a 50% gain over six years are not the same pace. Period normalisation exposes that difference, but it also magnifies short bursts. A short annualised number is not evidence that the pace could persist for a full year.
Match the account boundary
Before placing two records side by side, ask whether each is a personal cash account, a fund, a competition account or a model portfolio. Confirm the start and end dates, cash-flow treatment, fees and account currency. Do not merge a competition division with a personal audited series just because the trader is the same person.
Read the ranking inputs
The former empirical rankings and factor scores are withdrawn because primary per-trader records were not supplied. This calculator only transforms invented or user-supplied period inputs; it does not certify performance or supply comparable source evidence.
Worked comparison
An illustrative 50% total gain over 18 months annualises to about 31%. The same 50% over six months annualises much higher, but the second figure is based on a far shorter observation window. The calculator is useful for spotting a mismatch in periods; it cannot supply the missing risk history. Put maximum drawdown, starting capital, leverage and the number of independent observations beside the period-adjusted figure. If any field is absent, mark it unknown rather than filling it with an industry average.
Comparable or not comparable
The former empirical rankings and factor scores are withdrawn because primary per-trader records were not supplied. This calculator only transforms invented or user-supplied period inputs; it does not certify performance or supply comparable source evidence.
Stress-test the ordering
A ranking should show whether a modest change in evidence quality, return period or drawdown treatment reverses adjacent positions. Where the order is sensitive, describe the records as a close comparison rather than claiming a precise superiority. Preserve the underlying inputs so a reader can reconstruct the judgement. A transparent tie or an unranked record is more informative than a decimal score that hides missing data.