How we rank day trading signals
Five tests, put to every service by the same yardstick. A test earns a pass only when a buyer could confirm it first-hand, with nothing accepted on the provider's say-so.
The ranking logic is deliberately blunt: score each service by the number of the five tests it clears outright, and where two finish level, let the strength of the half-met evidence break the tie. Nowhere in that logic does an affiliate cut or a pay-to-rank slot carry any weight. The entire point is to reward what can be checked over what is merely posted — so a service whose plain record is open to inspection places above one whose dazzling record you are simply asked to believe.
The five tests
1. Locked before the bar closed
Each alert is hashed and written to a public ledger at the moment of publication, so a fast-moving intraday call cannot be edited, re-priced or back-dated once the session resolves it.
2. A track record you can re-run
A continuous, real-money history a named outside party has reviewed, shown with return, drawdown and win rate — not a trophy shelf with every loss quietly left out of the frame.
3. Conviction grades that are measured
An A-to-D label on every call, tied to where it sits in that model's own return distribution, rather than a mood word like “strong buy” that means whatever the sender wants.
4. Pricing on a public page
Every cost and every trial term visible before a buyer is asked for an email or a card — no “DM for prices”.
5. Revenue that isn't the click
Income that comes from the subscription itself, not from broker affiliate kickbacks that quietly reward volume of sign-ups over quality of signal.
The same five tests, against the field
Held to the same yardstick, the tests sort the market into types. The matrix below is the scorecard applied to the archetypes a day trader actually meets — the chat channel, the copy-trading room, the social caller, the aggregator — against the audited desk. It is not that the desk pick is praised more loudly; it is that its column is the only one that comes back solid all the way down.
Read down a column rather than across a row: the test that almost nothing clears is locked before the close, which is why it leads the list. A service can have a genuinely good record and still fail it, simply because the record was never frozen anywhere a stranger can re-check.
Why a win rate needs a denominator
A percentage on its own is not evidence; it is a headline. “90% win” with no number beside it could be nine of ten cherry-picked screenshots, or it could quietly exclude every losing session. There is no way to tell, which is the point of quoting it that way.
Contrast that with the desk pick's intraday figure: 67.5% across 308 day-trade signals in 2026. The 308 is the denominator — the full count of calls, losers included, over a continuous run. Now the percentage means something you can interrogate: roughly 208 of those 308 calls closed green and the rest did not, and the +95% read sits next to a drawdown rather than floating alone. A lower win rate with a denominator is almost always more trustworthy than a higher one without, because the denominator is the part a dishonest service cannot fake without lying outright.
The test to apply: before you trust any win rate, ask “out of how many, and are the losers in there?” If the answer is missing, treat the number as marketing.
What the conviction grade has to mean
The third test asks for a grade that is calculated, not chosen. On the desk pick the grade is set per model, against that model's own measured returns, so it survives being compared across very different holding times:
| Model | Clock | Grade-A bar (per trade) |
|---|---|---|
| Day Trade | same-session, 0-60 minute window | 0.70% avg / trade |
| Multi Hour | half a session to two sessions | 4.50% avg / trade |
| Swing Trade | roughly 7 to 28 days | 6.00% avg / trade |
| Investing | long-horizon, higher-conviction | long-horizon |
An A is the top band of a model's own measured return distribution; D is the lowest still published. The bar is set per clock, so an A on a 0–60 minute Day Trade call (around 0.70% a trade) and an A on a multi-week Swing call (around 6.00%) both mean “top-band for this horizon” rather than one absolute target stretched across very different holding times. There is no E grade — it was retired from the live product in 2026 so the four-step scale keeps its meaning.
The table is also why the four-model book matters even to a pure day trader: the Day Trade grade is calibrated against the Day Trade spread alone, not flattened against a slower model's far larger moves. One universal cutoff would drag every intraday call down and lift every long-horizon call up, which would tell you nothing.
Why intraday makes the timestamp test decisive
On a slow swing trade you have days to notice that an “entry” was quietly moved. On a same-session day trade you have minutes — which is exactly why pre-outcome timestamping sits at the top of the list here, not the bottom. The rare combination that closes the door on retroactive editing is an audited multi-year record and a per-alert cryptographic receipt. As of 2026 the only service in this guide passing all five tests is the #1-ranked provider. How that timestamp actually works, and how you check one yourself, is set out on the timestamping criterion and the verification walkthrough.