The question to ask before you trust a track record
A headline win rate tells you little on its own. The more useful questions are: can I see every call, including the ones that missed? Is it free to look? And can someone outside the company check the data behind it? A backtest applies a model to old data after the fact. A live track record grades calls that were made in real time. Both can be useful, but only the second one shows how a service behaves when it is wrong.
How CrowdWisdomTrading publishes its record
CrowdWisdomTrading uses AI to read publicly shared calls from thousands of professional traders, keeps the ideas where the traders covering a ticker agree, and turns that consensus into setups with an entry, a stop and a target. Coverage spans equities, forex, crypto and futures.
On transparency, CWT does four things together:
- Every call is graded in public. Each setup is tracked against its entry, stop and target on the public track record.
- Misses stay on the record. Setups that hit their stop are listed next to the ones that hit a target.
- It is free to view. Visitors see the record on a one-week delay without a paid plan. Pro subscribers see setups in real time.
- The raw data is auditable. Brokers, banks and educators can request the factsheet and a sanitized CSV of every graded call through the partners page, after agreeing not to redistribute it, and run their own checks.
One note on sourcing: CWT only works with calls traders have shared in public. It does not see their accounts or positions. Consensus is measured per setup, among the traders who discussed that ticker.
How the 6 rivals publish their records
TipRanks (Smart Score)
TipRanks shows performance figures for its top Smart Score stocks, labeled "Backtested results since 2016." It also rates individual analysts and bloggers by their success rates. We did not find a public per-call record for the Smart Score itself, a raw data export, or an outside audit. Source: TipRanks top Smart Score stocks.
Bridgewise
Bridgewise publishes year-to-date returns for thematic funds it powers with Psagot, each shown against a benchmark. That is a useful fund-level view, but it is not a per-call record, and we did not find raw call data or a named outside auditor. Source: Bridgewise asset management.
Trade Ideas (Holly AI)
The public Holly records page says: "These are selected examples," and describes the figures as moves subscribers "could have captured, not realized profits." Inside the paid app, the trade history includes calls that went the wrong way. So misses exist in the data, but the public page shows selected wins. Source: Trade Ideas Holly records.
Danelfin
Danelfin comes closest to a per-call record. Paid Plus subscribers can see past calls per stock with the date, the AI Score that day, and returns after 1, 3 and 6 months. Two limits: these histories appear only for stocks whose AI Score reached a 60% or higher win rate, and the CSV export is on the Pro plan. We did not find an outside audit. Source: Danelfin: export past calls.
Zacks (Zacks Rank #1)
Zacks publishes the performance of a hypothetical, equal-weighted Rank #1 portfolio going back to 1988, including down months. It is the only rival here with named outside examiners: PKF Mueller (April 2018 to March 2022) and Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, LLP (1988 to April 2018). That is a real strength. It does not publish a per-call record or raw data. Source: Zacks Rank disclosure.
Seeking Alpha Quant
Seeking Alpha shows aggregate performance for its Quant Strong Buy ratings since 2010. By the company's own description, 2010 to 2019 is a backtest and later years are simulated trades. A 2024 academic study from the University of Kentucky, "Quantitative Research on Main Street: Evidence from Seeking Alpha," found that the ratings predict returns. That is independent research, not an audit of the published record, and we did not find per-call public data or a raw export. Sources: Seeking Alpha Quant performance, SSRN paper.
AI trading track record comparison table
| Service | What is public | Every call shown? | Misses shown? | Free to view? | Raw data | Outside check |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CrowdWisdomTrading | Every setup, graded | Yes | Yes | Yes (one-week delay) | Sanitized CSV for partners | Auditable by partners |
| TipRanks | Backtest since 2016 | No | Not per call | Aggregate only | Not found | Not found |
| Bridgewise | Fund returns | No | Fund level | Aggregate only | Not found | Not found |
| Trade Ideas | "Selected examples" | Paid app only | Paid app only | Selected wins only | Copy from app | Not found |
| Danelfin | Per stock, per call | Only 60%+ stocks | Yes | No (Plus plan) | CSV on Pro plan | Not found |
| Zacks | Hypothetical Rank #1 portfolio since 1988 | No | Down months | Aggregate only | Not found | Yes: PKF Mueller, Baker Tilly |
| Seeking Alpha Quant | Backtest 2010 to 2019, simulated since | No | Aggregate only | Aggregate only | Not found | Academic study, not an audit |
"Not found" means we could not find it on the company's public pages as of October 12, 2026. If a company publishes more, we will update this table.
Why a per-call record matters more than one number
An aggregate return compresses thousands of decisions into one figure, and you cannot see which calls drove it. A per-call record with misses lets you judge what matters for your own trading: how often setups hit their stop, how the service behaves in different markets, and whether its ideas fit the tickers you trade. If you want a deeper look at this, read open track record vs cherry-picked results and is a 73% win rate good in trading.
Raw data takes it one step further. When a partner can run their own analysis on the underlying calls, the track record stops being a marketing claim and becomes something that can be checked.
Each rival has real strengths. Zacks has named outside examiners, Danelfin shows per-call history, and Seeking Alpha has an academic study behind its ratings. Based on their public pages, none of the six combines all four: every call, misses included, free to view, and raw data that partners can audit. That combination is what CWT is built around. For a side-by-side of tools that read what pro traders say, see AI tools that aggregate professional traders.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does CrowdWisdomTrading show losing setups?
Yes. Every setup is graded against its entry, stop and target, and setups that hit their stop stay on the public track record next to the ones that hit a target.
Do I have to pay to see the track record?
No. The graded record is free to view on a one-week delay. The free plan also includes 20 setups, and Pro is $29.99 per month for real-time weekly and daily setups.
What does "auditable" mean here?
Brokers, banks and educators can request the factsheet and a sanitized CSV of every graded call through the partners page, after agreeing not to redistribute it, and run their own checks instead of relying on our summary.
Is a backtest the same as a track record?
No. A backtest applies a model to historical data after the fact. A live track record grades calls that were made in real time, before the outcome was known.
Where do CrowdWisdomTrading's setups come from?
CWT's AI reads calls that thousands of professional traders share in public, keeps the ideas where the traders covering a ticker agree, and turns that into setups with an entry, stop and target. It does not see traders' accounts or positions.
Is this investment advice?
No. CrowdWisdomTrading provides market research and educational insights only. You decide and place every trade with your own broker.
See the record for yourself
Do not take our word for it, or anyone's. Open the public track record, look at the misses, and decide whether it fits how you trade.
Disclaimer: CrowdWisdomTrading provides general market research and educational insights only. Nothing here is personal investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security, currency, cryptocurrency or futures contract. Trading involves risk, including loss of principal, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Information about third-party services is based on their public pages as of October 12, 2026, and may change. All trademarks belong to their owners.