Team POW EA: Solid Performer, But Nothing Special
Does what it says. Delivered +52% over 12 months with positive returns, but higher drawdown (24.7%) than top performers and average consistency. Responsive support. Decent choice if top picks don't fit your needs.
The honest assessment
Team POW is the EA equivalent of "fine." It makes money. Support responds. Settings work. But there's nothing here that stands out or justifies choosing it over higher-ranked options.
Why rank #3? Positive returns earn it a spot in top rankings. But 24.7% max drawdown vs 12.1% (Bullbridge) or even 18.4% (EA Automatic) means you're accepting more risk for less reward. Hard to justify unless top picks aren't available.
Best use case: You've already filled slots with EA Automatic and Bullbridge, want a third diversification option, and can accept 25% drawdowns for modest 3-4% monthly gains.
Performance at a glance
Stay Ahead of the Market
Subscribe to receive news about our exposes and articles first.
What we tested
Team POW received the same rigorous live testing as all ranked EAs. No special treatment, no cherry-picking periods.
- Duration: 12 months live trading (shorter than #1 and #2 due to later start)
- Capital: Standard test account
- Broker: Standard account, typical spreads (not ECN)
- Settings: Vendor recommended defaults
- Monitoring: Weekly reviews, standard pause protocols
- Pairs: Multi-pair setup per vendor specification
Context: Team POW tested for 12 months vs 18 months for top two. Shorter period means less data, but enough to assess consistency and drawdown behavior. Results held steady across test period with no major anomalies.
The results: decent but not outstanding
Over 12 months, Team POW delivered +52% return. That's profitable. That's positive. But when you dig into how it earned those returns, the picture gets murkier.
What went right
- Positive returns: 52% beats most retail traders
- Consistent direction: More up months than down
- Support quality: Vendor responded to queries promptly
- Settings worked: Out-of-box config functioned as described
- No catastrophic failures: Never blew up or hit crisis
Where it falls short
- High drawdown: 24.7% max vs 12.1% Bullbridge
- Average consistency: More volatile than top performers
- Lower risk-adjusted returns: You pay more pain for less gain
- Nothing special: No standout feature or edge
- Outperformed by alternatives: Both #1 and #2 offer better value
The math problem: Bullbridge delivered 89% over 18 months with 12.1% max DD. Team POW delivered 52% over 12 months with 24.7% max DD. Annualized and risk-adjusted, Team POW underperforms significantly. You're accepting 2x the drawdown for less than half the return rate.
Comparison: Team POW vs top performers
| Metric | Team POW (#3) | Bullbridge (#2) | EA Automatic (#1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test Period | 12 months | 18 months | 18 months |
| Total Return | +52% | +89% | +237% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.7% | -12.1% | -18.4% |
| Avg Monthly | +3.9% | +4.1% | +7.6% |
| Win Rate | 61% | 68% | 71% |
| Risk-Adjusted | Poor | Excellent | Excellent |
| Consistency | Average | Excellent | Excellent |
Every metric except "positive returns" falls short of top performers. The 24.7% drawdown is particularly concerningâdouble Bullbridge's 12.1% for lower monthly gains.
Monthly performance pattern
Team POW showed average consistency â neither smooth like Bullbridge nor explosive like EA Automatic. Some months gained 6-8%, others lost 3-5%. The volatility means you experience the psychological pain of drawdowns without the offsetting benefit of exceptional returns.
- Best month: ~+8% (solid but not spectacular)
- Worst month: ~-5% (manageable but adds to DD)
- Typical range: +2% to +5% (average, nothing special)
- Losing months: 4 out of 12 (33% monthly loss rate vs 11% Bullbridge)
The 33% monthly loss rate (4 losing months out of 12) compares unfavorably to Bullbridge's 11% (2 out of 18). You're experiencing losses one-third of the time for returns that don't compensate.
The drawdown problem
24.7% max drawdown is the critical weakness. To put this in perspective:
- $5,000 account drops to $3,765 at peak drawdown
- Takes 6-8 weeks typical recovery time to new highs
- Psychological stress equivalent to watching $1,235 evaporate temporarily
- 2x higher than Bullbridge for lower returns
For context: Professional traders target <15% max DD for sustainable strategies. Team POW's 24.7% puts it in "high risk" territory without the returns to justify the risk. EA Automatic gets 18.4% DD but delivers 237% returnârisk justified. Team POW's 52% return doesn't justify 24.7% DD.
What Team POW does well
To be fair, Team POW isn't bad. It has strengths:
Responsive support
Vendor support responded within 24-48 hours to queries. Settings questions answered clearly. No canned responses or ghosting. This puts Team POW ahead of many EAs with non-existent support.
Works as described
Out-of-box settings functioned without tweaking. EA delivered the type of performance advertised (positive returns, multi-pair). No bait-and-switch or misleading marketing.
Standard account compatible
Like Bullbridge, Team POW works on standard accounts. No ECN requirement. Broader accessibility than EA Automatic's ECN preference.
Positive returns
52% in 12 months beats buy-and-hold, beats most retail traders, beats savings accounts. In absolute terms, it's profitable.
Why it's ranked #3 (and not higher)
Rankings aren't about "good vs bad"âthey're about relative value. Team POW earns #3 because:
- It's profitable: Positive returns keep it in top 3
- Nothing beats top 2: Both EA Automatic and Bullbridge offer superior risk-adjusted returns
- Average everything: No standout metricâit's "fine" across the board
- Higher risk for less reward: Drawdown doesn't match return profile
- Better alternatives exist: If you have $2K+ and can choose freely, top 2 are objectively better
The honest take: If EA Automatic and Bullbridge didn't exist, Team POW would look decent. But they do exist, and both outperform Team POW on risk-adjusted basis. #3 rank reflects "best of the rest," not "exceptional performer."
Who should consider Team POW?
â Maybe suitable
- Already running EA Automatic + Bullbridge, want third diversification slot
- Top performers unavailable/incompatible with your broker
- You specifically need features Team POW offers that others don't
- Can accept 25% drawdowns for 3-4% monthly gains
- Value responsive support highly
â Better alternatives
- If you want low drawdown: Use Bullbridge (12.1% max DD)
- If you want high returns: Use EA Automatic (237% over 18 months)
- If you want consistency: Use EA Automatic or Bullbridge
- If you have ECN access: EA Automatic performs better
- If you're risk-averse: Bullbridge's smoothness beats Team POW
Configuration & requirements
- Account type: Standard accounts work (no ECN required)
- Capital: Minimum not specified in test, assume $2K+ standard
- Platform: MT4/MT5
- Settings: Vendor defaults functional out-of-box
- Monitoring: Weekly check-ins recommended
- VPS: Recommended for stability
No special setup complexity noted. Standard EA deployment process. Settings worked without extensive optimizationâa plus for ease of use.
Strengths & weaknesses summary
Genuine strengths
- Profitable over 12-month test period
- Responsive vendor support (24-48h replies)
- Standard account compatible
- Out-of-box settings work as advertised
- No catastrophic failures or blow-ups
- Positive returns beat most retail trading
Significant weaknesses
- 24.7% max DD vs 12.1% Bullbridge (2x higher)
- Lower returns than both top performers
- Average consistency (33% monthly loss rate)
- Nothing stands out or justifies premium
- Poor risk-adjusted performance
- Outperformed by alternatives at every metric
Final verdict: decent, not outstanding
Team POW: 7.4/10 â Solid Performer, Nothing Special
The honest bottom line: Team POW does what it says. It makes money. Support responds. Settings work. But there's zero reason to choose it over Bullbridge or EA Automatic unless those aren't options for you.
52% return over 12 months sounds good until you realize it came with 24.7% max drawdownâdouble Bullbridge's 12.1% for lower monthly gains. The risk-reward math doesn't add up. You're accepting significantly more drawdown pain for modest returns.
Why it ranks #3: It's profitable (keeps it in top tier), but outperformed by both top picks on every meaningful metric. #3 doesn't mean "bad"âit means "best of the rest when better options exist."
Who should use it: Diversification slot after filling EA Automatic + Bullbridge positions. Or if top picks incompatible with your specific setup. Otherwise, hard to justify.
Verdict: Decent performer. Does what it says. But why settle for decent when better alternatives exist at similar price points?
Team POW EA â FAQ
Is Team POW profitable?
Yes. 12-month test delivered +52% total return, 3.9% avg monthly, 61% win rate. Profitable in absolute terms. But risk-adjusted performance lags top performers due to 24.7% max drawdown.
Why is Team POW ranked #3 instead of higher?
24.7% max drawdown vs 12.1% Bullbridge (2x higher) for lower returns. EA Automatic delivers 237% with 18.4% DD. Team POW's 52% return doesn't justify 24.7% drawdown. Rankings reflect relative value, not absolute profitability.
Should I choose Team POW over Bullbridge or EA Automatic?
No, unless top picks unavailable. Bullbridge offers 89% return with 12.1% DD (superior risk-adjusted). EA Automatic offers 237% with 18.4% DD (superior returns). Team POW's 52%/24.7% profile doesn't compete. Use Team POW as diversification third slot only.
What's Team POW's biggest weakness?
Drawdown. 24.7% max vs 12.1% Bullbridge means 2x more equity pain for lower returns. Also average consistency: 33% monthly loss rate (4 of 12 months) vs Bullbridge's 11% (2 of 18 months). Higher volatility without offsetting returns.
Does Team POW need ECN account?
No. Tested on standard account with typical spreads. One advantage over EA Automatic (ECN preferred). But Bullbridge also works on standard accounts and outperforms Team POW, so this advantage doesn't rescue ranking.
Is Team POW support good?
Yesâone of Team POW's genuine strengths. Vendor responded within 24-48 hours, answered questions clearly, no ghosting. Better support than many EAs. But good support doesn't offset performance gaps vs top picks.