We continuously research, build, and validate systematic trading ideas with robust testing, then share transparent results so everyone can access evidence-based quant insights, not just institutions. We backtest quantitative trading strategies across global equity indices, options analysis on US index ETFs, portfolio optimization, sentiment tracking, and market regime detection - all with live data updated daily. Each strategy is documented with methodology, assumptions, risk metrics, drawdown behavior, and implementation notes so readers can evaluate both strengths and limitations before using any idea in practice. We focus on reproducible workflows: clear inputs, explainable rules, out-of-sample checks, and comparable reporting across assets and market regimes. From indicator research and options structures to portfolio construction and risk-control experiments, the goal is simple: make serious quantitative research transparent, verifiable, and useful for independent builders.
Euronext2026·Paris · Amsterdam · Brussels · Milan · 252-day beta · leverage cap 2.5
Long low-beta and short high-beta Euronext names, each leg levered toward unit beta with a cap of 2.5, measured against the EURO STOXX 50.
Euronext2026·Euronext constituents · MOM and SMB · 12-month factor timing
Momentum and size factors built from Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Milan large caps, then timed by their own trailing twelve-month return.
Euronext2026·EURO STOXX 50 · VSTOXX · realised variance · sign rule
VSTOXX implied variance minus EURO STOXX 50 realised variance, the slope onto next-month index returns, and a long-index rule that is on only when the premium is positive.
HKEX2026·HKEX constituents · prior-month quintiles · loser minus winner · 20 bps
Jegadeesh one-month reversal on Hang Seng constituents: long last month's bottom quintile, short the top quintile, with a 20 bp turnover haircut.
US2026·J/K/N · Deflated Sharpe · CSCV/PBO · walk-forward · stress tests
Multi-stage overfitting diagnostics for S&P 500 J/K/N winners-only momentum: DSR, disparity, sensitivity, block bootstrap, CSCV/PBO, walk-forward CV, and stress-tested selection.
US2026·US equity · US bonds · REITs · Sharpe tests · drawdown tests · interactive diagnostics
Comparative allocation study of US equity-only versus US multi-asset portfolios (stocks, bonds, REITs) with hypothesis testing, frontier diagnostics, and interactive risk-adjusted analytics.
US2026·Python, Recharts, PCA, shrinkage, cross-sectional R²
Yahoo Finance ETF panel: PCA spectrum, cross-sectional R² vs K, pseudo-OOS folds, ridge diagnostics. JSON from npm run data:shrinking-cross-section.
US2026·Crisis replay · compound stress · VaR/ES suite · FFP reweighting · regime correlation
Institutional portfolio stress laboratory: historical crisis replay, univariate and compound parametric shocks, historical/parametric/Monte Carlo tail risk, Fully Flexible Probability reweighting, forward GARCH simulation, and cross-study tail-risk attribution.
Data as of 2026-11-13
Abbreviations
This panel summarises US Treasury term-structure dynamics: inversion diagnostics on benchmark spreads, Nelson–Siegel level, slope, and curvature, and a macro risk regime that combines curve shape with equity drawdown context. It is a condensed view of the live monitor in our Yield Curve Intelligence study, where the full factor history, regime tables, and methodology are documented.
The figures below update from the latest available curve snapshot. The headline cards report the current 10Y–3M spread, the classified regime, and how often the curve has been inverted over the sample; the chart traces the same spreads through the most recent sessions so you can judge whether flattening is isolated or persistent.
Read spreads against zero: negative values mean short rates exceed long rates for that pair. A brief dip below zero is not, by itself, a recession signal; sustained inversion—especially when it aligns with risk-off equity conditions—has more often preceded macro slowdowns, though lead times and severity still vary by cycle.
This section tracks recurring calendar effects in US equity sectors using eleven SPDR Select Sector ETFs (GICS) and SPY as the benchmark. Each heatmap cell is the unconditional average monthly total return for that sector in that calendar month, pooled across all years in the sample from 2019 onward.
What this widget shows
Full methodology, cyclical vs defensive tables, quarterly profiles, benchmark-relative rotation, and exploratory t-tests are on the Calendar Effects in US GICS Sector ETFs project page.
Composite leaders and average value, quality, and growth scores by sector from the latest US large-cap fundamentals dataset.
View fundamental stock analysis projectLoading strategies...
Ranked snapshot of strategy performance metrics.
No fundamental strategy dataset found yet. Run npm run data:fundamental-strategies.
Volatility
Volatility
Volatility
Volatility
Volatility
Spread
Spread
Volatility
| # | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reverse Iron Butterfly | Volatility | 0.752 | +1131.237% | +121.638% | +77.630% | 4 |
| 2 | Long Straddle | Volatility | 0.735 | +1127.470% | +122.197% | +77.630% | 4 |
| 3 | Long Straddles | Volatility | 0.735 | +1127.470% | +122.197% | +77.630% | 4 |
| 4 | Short Put Calendar | Volatility | 0.695 | +1286.865% | +286.320% | +81.578% | 4 |
| 5 | Short Call Calendar | Volatility | 0.670 | +486.867% | +104.043% | +81.578% | 4 |
| 6 | Bull Call Spread | Spread | 0.462 | +2099.758% | +355.635% | +46.055% | 4 |
| 7 | Long Call Spread | Spread | 0.462 | +2099.758% | +355.635% | +46.055% | 4 |
| 8 | Reverse Iron Condor | Volatility | 0.375 | +3818.790% | +484.475% | +35.528% | 4 |
Loading portfolio strategies…
Per-cluster training statistics—count, mean return, volatility, Sharpe, and beta—for K-means groups on scaled risk/return features. Full methodology, charts, and validation backtests are on the Diversified Stock Portfolio Clustering project page.
| Cluster | Count | Return | Vol | Sharpe | Beta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 71 | 11.200% | 24.400% | 0.476 | 0.619 |
| 2 | 19 | -19.300% | 54.600% | -0.378 | 1.610 |
| 3 | 43 | 16.300% | 37.800% | 0.419 | 1.266 |
| 4 | 60 | -6.600% | 30.400% | -0.215 | 0.757 |
Mean return
Mean volatility
Mean Sharpe
Online portfolio selection (OLPS) updates weights each period from past prices alone—no forward-looking labels—making it a natural test bed for adaptive allocation under regime change. This study benchmarks fourteen published and baseline rules (momentum, mean-reversion, and pattern-learning families) on a diversified six-ETF sleeve spanning US equity, international equity, emerging markets, Treasuries, inflation-linked bonds, and REITs (VTI, EFA, EEM, TLT, TIP, VNQ).
Each algorithm is estimated on 2015–2022 daily closes and evaluated out-of-sample on 2023–2024 with daily rebalancing, zero look-ahead, and wealth indices reset to 1.0 at the test start. SPY and an equal-weight universe portfolio (UFR) anchor absolute performance; a 0.1% per-trade fee variant is tracked in the full project for turnover-sensitive strategies.
The panels below highlight the leading test-period strategies and a cross-sectional risk–return map across fourteen OLPS rules on a six-ETF sleeve (VTI, EFA, EEM, TLT, TIP, VNQ). For universe setup, equity paths, fee stress tests, and the full metrics table, see the Adaptive Portfolio Strategies project page.
| Algorithm | Type | Sharpe ↓ | Return | Vol | Max DD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAMR | Follow-the-Loser | 2.879 | 104.903% | 15.095% | -9.200% |
| OLMAR | Follow-the-Loser | 2.071 | 70.206% | 14.813% | -6.674% |
| BCRP | Benchmark | 1.936 | 57.244% | 13.205% | -10.723% |
| RMR | Follow-the-Loser | 1.183 | 38.124% | 14.917% | -7.994% |
| Anticor | Follow-the-Loser | 1.118 | 24.365% | 10.371% | -9.148% |
| BAH | Benchmark | 0.865 | 18.116% | 10.103% | -11.574% |
| EG | Follow-the-Winner | 0.854 | 17.795% | 10.057% | -11.581% |
| CRP | Benchmark | 0.853 | 17.782% | 10.055% | -11.581% |
| ONS | Follow-the-Winner | 0.853 | 17.768% | 10.055% | -11.581% |
| CWMR | Follow-the-Loser | 0.853 | 17.782% | 10.055% | -11.581% |
| CORN | Pattern Matching | 0.853 | 17.774% | 10.055% | -11.578% |
| BNN | Pattern Matching | 0.852 | 17.757% | 10.054% | -11.582% |
| UP | Follow-the-Winner | 0.842 | 17.333% | 9.939% | -11.304% |
| Kelly | Pattern Matching | -0.030 | -0.665% | 11.138% | -18.572% |
| 1. | Betting Against Beta on Euronext Large Caps EuronextLong low-beta and short high-beta Euronext names, each leg levered toward unit beta with a cap of 2.5, measured against the EURO STOXX 50. | 2026 | Paris · Amsterdam · Brussels · Milan · 252-day beta · leverage cap 2.5 |
| 2. |  Factor Momentum in Pan-European Large Caps EuronextMomentum and size factors built from Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Milan large caps, then timed by their own trailing twelve-month return. | 2026 | Euronext constituents · MOM and SMB · 12-month factor timing |
| 3. |  Variance Risk Premium on EURO STOXX 50 EuronextVSTOXX implied variance minus EURO STOXX 50 realised variance, the slope onto next-month index returns, and a long-index rule that is on only when the premium is positive. | 2026 | EURO STOXX 50 · VSTOXX · realised variance · sign rule |
| 4. |  One-Month Reversal on Hang Seng Constituents HKEXJegadeesh one-month reversal on Hang Seng constituents: long last month's bottom quintile, short the top quintile, with a 20 bp turnover haircut. | 2026 | HKEX constituents · prior-month quintiles · loser minus winner · 20 bps |
| 5. |  Equity Carry on Hang Seng Constituents HKEXLong-high versus short-low trailing dividend carry on Hong Kong listings. Carry is twelve months of cash dividends divided by price, rebalanced monthly. | 2026 | HKEX constituents · trailing dividends · tercile long-short · 15 bps |
| 6. |  Distance Pairs on Tokyo Large Caps JPXGatev–Goetzmann–Rouwenhorst distance pairs on Tokyo large caps: 12-month formation, 6-month trading, up to eight disjoint pairs, and a z-score entry at 2. | 2026 | TSE constituents · formation SSD · z-score ±2 · 5 bps per leg |
| 7. |  Overnight versus Intraday Returns on the Tokyo Stock Exchange JPXEqual-weight split of the Tokyo session into close-to-open and open-to-close returns for Nikkei large caps, with Newey–West tests and a 1 bp overnight haircut. | 2026 | TSE constituents · close-to-open · open-to-close · Newey–West |
| 8. |  Time-Series Momentum on Shanghai Indices and ETFs SSEMoskowitz–Ooi–Pedersen time-series momentum on Shanghai indices and SSE-listed equity, bond, and gold ETFs, scaled by trailing volatility and charged 5 bps of turnover. | 2026 | SSE indices · 12-1 sign · vol scaling · gold and Treasury ETFs |
Showing 1–8 of 49 projects
Updated about 10 hours ago (latest item)
| 1. | Stock Market: Will S&P 500 Open Up or Down Today?Sentiment pipeline · about 10 hours ago |
| 2. | Asian markets turn negative as early rally fades after Huang downfallSentiment pipeline · about 10 hours ago |
| 3. | Bitcoin Slips Below $69K For First Time Since August: Is This A Buying Opportunity Or A Deeper Crypto Rout?Sentiment pipeline · about 10 hours ago |
| 4. | The Strait of Hormuz was the biggest game changer for markets in 2026Sentiment pipeline · about 10 hours ago |
| 5. | HOOD Stock Drops Overnight Amid Bitcoin Weakness: Robinhood Reports 28.9M Funded Customers In OctoberSentiment pipeline · about 10 hours ago |
| 1. | Statistical Modeling | Advanced regression analysis, time series forecasting, and multivariate statistical methods for complex data patterns. |
| 2. | Strategy Comparator | Compare up to 4 strategies side-by-side using Sharpe, return, drawdown, win rate, and trade count. |
| 3. | Stock Sentiment Tracker | US equity only: live prices and news sentiment (VADER) for major US stocks. See Sentiment page. |
| 4. | Risk Analytics | Comprehensive risk assessment frameworks including VaR, CVaR, and stress testing methodologies. |
| 5. | Data Pipeline | High-performance data processing infrastructure designed for large-scale quantitative analysis. |
| 6. | HFT Latency Budget Calculator | Plan per-stage p99.9 tick-to-trade budgets and detect bottlenecks before live deployment. |
| 7. | Portfolio Optimization | Modern portfolio theory implementation with multi-objective optimization and constraint handling. |