StratevaIndependent validation for systematic strategies
Would your strategy survive beyond its backtest?
Independent validation for cash equities, spot crypto and spot FX strategies. We reproduce the result, examine its fragility and issue a verdict before you risk capital.
Validate one strategy — €59View a sample report
No derivatives · No optimization to force a pass · No AI-generated verdicts
What can be validated
Equities and ETFs, spot crypto and spot FX. No derivatives.
Equities and ETFs, spot
Listed shares and exchange-traded funds bought and sold outright. Single names, baskets and cross-sectional portfolios.
Crypto, spot
Spot pairs on exchanges with usable historical depth. The asset is held outright — no margin and no synthetic exposure.
Currency pairs, spot
Spot FX pairs. The exposure is the currency itself, not a leveraged wrapper around it.
No options, futures, perpetuals, CFDs, leveraged tokens or structured products.
A historical curve is not a decision
A historical curve can hide overfitting, unrealistic costs, dependence on one particular period, or a sequence of returns that happened to be exceptionally kind.
Strateva does not try to improve your strategy. It tries to refute it before the market does.
Backtesting and validation answer different questions
A backtester is the right tool for building a strategy. It is not the tool that tells you how much to trust the result it produced — that is a different question, and it needs a different instrument.
A backtester asks
How much would it have made?
Strateva asks
- Is it reproducible?
- Does it survive outside the observed sequence?
- Does it hold up against costs and reasonable changes?
- Is there enough evidence to move to shadowing?
Both are necessary. One builds the result; the other decides how much weight it can carry.
How a validation works
Four steps, from the material you already have to a decision you can act on.
Define
Send code, Pine Script, a trade list or written rules. Strateva turns the material into an exact scope, and you confirm it.
Execute
We freeze the rules, the data, the costs and the benchmark. The strategy runs in an isolated environment.
Verify
The engine reproduces the metrics and examines robustness, time dependence, costs, benchmark and alternative paths.
Decide
You receive the evidence, the limitations, and a result that tells you what the next step is.
Every validation ends in one of three results
- Ready for shadowing
- Revision required
- Insufficient evidence
AI can interpret and prepare. The metrics and the verdict are produced by a deterministic engine.
What gets validated
Methodology
Causality, labels, validation splits, benchmarks and experimental design.
Economics
Commissions and fees modelled with their source and effective date, plus how sensitive the result is to cost and turnover. Spreads, slippage, capacity and latency are reviewed as declared assumptions: if they are missing or implausible, the report says so.
Statistics
Uncertainty, stability, sensitivity, multiple testing and incremental value.
Implementation
Code, financial accounting, data integrity, tests and reproducibility.
What you receive
A twelve-part report: the verdict first, then the scope you confirmed, the metrics, the benchmark, the alternative paths, the findings, the limitations and the next step.
Verdict
One result, its reason, and what happens next.
Validation Scope, confirmed
The exact claim, asset, timeframe, costs and benchmark you agreed to.
Permuted Monte Carlo
The same returns, reordered — how much of the risk was sequence luck.
Limitations
What this validation could not establish.
One engine. Three sizes of analysis.
Every plan runs the same engine, the same methodology and the same tests. The only difference is how many validations you get.
One validation = 1 strategy version × 1 asset × 1 timeframe.
- Single1 validation€59
- Research5 validations€249
- Portfolio15 validations€599
Public case studies
RF100 — Can a Random Forest beat simple momentum?
- Market
- US equities, spot
- Strategy type
- Cross-sectional machine learning
What was checked
A causal cross-sectional Random Forest found statistically positive predictive structure but failed to beat a simple momentum benchmark under equivalent execution assumptions.
EWMA63 — Does beta selection add value beyond de-risking?
- Market
- US equities, spot
- Strategy type
- Volatility-based allocation overlay
What was checked
The audit showed that most of the historical Sharpe and drawdown improvement came from lower market exposure, while the incremental value of the EWMA63 allocation layer was approximately zero.
Historical research — outside the current commercial scope
F2 Anticipator V2 — Can a late-book signal anticipate 5-minute BTC Up/Down markets?
- Market
- Polymarket prediction markets
- Strategy type
- Order-book microstructure signal
What was checked
A causal, book-only model estimated the final probability of Up and traded only when expected edge exceeded costs. The temporal OOS showed that the predicted edge did not survive realistic execution assumptions.
Volatility Term-Structure Strategy
- Market
- SPY ETF, spot
- Strategy type
- Volatility term-structure regime filter
What was checked
A transparent SPY allocation example combining a lagged VIX term-structure filter, realized-volatility targeting, leverage limits and explicit turnover costs.
Independent, and explicit about its limits
No stake in the answer
No commission, no product to sell alongside the verdict, no upside in a strategy passing. A negative outcome is worth exactly as much as a positive one, and is delivered as readily.
The limits are published, not disclosed on request
Every report states what it could not establish. A capability published without its limit reads as sales; published with it, it can be checked.
Not investment advice
A validation reports what held up under the agreed checks over the period examined. It is never a recommendation to allocate capital and never a promise of future performance.
Your material stays yours
Nothing you send is published, reused or shown to anyone else. The public examples on this site are strategies belonging to Strateva itself.
How you contract this
What happens after you send the form, in order. Nothing runs and nothing is charged until you have approved all of it.
- You send a compatibility request.
- Strateva reviews the material and replies within 48 business hours.
- You receive, in writing: the Validation Scope, the final price, the delivery date and the payment method.
- You confirm the scope and the terms.
- Strateva sends you a payment link for the agreed amount, and you pay through it.
- Work starts once the agreed conditions are met.
- You receive the report and its annex electronically.
How long it takes
Compatibility reply: within 48 business hours.
Delivery date: confirmed in writing in the proposal, for your engagement, before you accept and before any payment.
No fixed per-package deadline is published because there is not yet enough measurement behind one. A date you can rely on beats a number that looks precise.
The clock starts once the scope is accepted, the material is frozen and payment is confirmed. If you change rules, asset, timeframe or material, it stops and the scope may need redoing.
How payment works
Payment is confirmed before work begins.
Payment is by card, through a Stripe payment link that reaches you with the proposal — after compatibility is confirmed, never before. Strateva never sees or stores your card details.
Card payments are processed by Stripe.
If the material is not compatible, no proposal is issued and nothing is charged.
We confirm compatibility, scope, price and delivery date first. Nothing starts and nothing is charged before you approve it.
Before you risk capital, check what the result actually rests on.
If the strategy falls outside the current scope, we tell you before charging anything.
Contact
Have a strategy, backtest or model that needs an independent review?
The information you submit will be used to assess your request. Read the privacy policy.