A fast simulator and an MT5 broker-terminal test can produce different decisions when they do not implement the same strategy primitives, market path, costs and runtime settings. This note publishes the JPTC Research Team capability audit and explains what it can and cannot establish.
Published by JPTC Research Team under the JPTC editorial policy.
Evidence: Product and code capability audit, not a performance study. Reviewed 23 August 2026. Version 1.0.
Download the capability matrixAn EA simulator can disagree with MT5 when the two paths do not process identical signals, price movement, costs and broker rules. A fast engine is useful for screening, but its result cannot validate logic that is absent or materially simplified.
The team compared the strategy capabilities represented by the fast research engine with the compiled-EA and terminal-validation path used for release decisions. The review covered signal availability, price-path detail, spread, commission, slippage, runtime settings and the final release gate.
The review found a production entry path that was not represented in the fast simulator. A setfile using that path could therefore be screened incompletely, which blocks simulator-only approval and requires broker-terminal validation.
A fast simulator can reject obviously weak ideas, compare rule variants and identify candidates for deeper testing. It cannot prove terminal parity, future behaviour or suitability for a customer account.
This audit does not measure profitability and does not claim that one engine is numerically closer for every strategy. A controlled trade-by-trade parity experiment is still required for strategies represented in both engines.
The compiled EA and exact standalone setfile must pass the documented broker-terminal validation path before a customer release. Unexplained differences in signals, timestamps, sizing, fills or costs return the file to research or cause rejection.
No. Fast screening can identify candidates, but the compiled EA and exact standalone setfile must pass the broker-terminal release gate.
No. It remains useful for research throughput and early rejection, provided its capability limits are documented and terminal results control release decisions.
No. It is a technical comparison of engine capabilities and validation roles, not a trading-performance study.