正在加载美国股市状态…
➜
如何开始
只需几分钟即可完成完整系统设置。
打开快速入门指南 →
公开目录 · DEVIOLAB

策略目录

探索算法策略、比较表现,并查看每个模型的完整历史。
每个算法策略都对应一个真实的交易代理(Trading Bot),由 DevioLab 团队基于历史数据测试创建。它可用于受支持平台(包括 Binance)的 API 自动交易,也可仅作为 Signal Bot,通过 Telegram 和电子邮件发送通知。
2 · 代码
⌕
筛选
所有已选条件共同生效
行业与分组筛选
交易所可用性
A · Agilent Technologies Inc. (4) AAOI · Applied Optoelectronics Inc. (5) AAPL · Apple Inc. (7) ABBV · AbbVie Inc. (4) ABNB · Airbnb Inc. (4) ABT · Abbott Laboratories (4) ACGL · Arch Capital Group Ltd. (4) ACN · Accenture PLC Class A (4) ADBE · Adobe Inc. (3) ADI · Analog Devices Inc. (4) ADM · Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (4) ADP · Automatic Data Processing Inc. (4) ADSK · Autodesk Inc. (4) AEE · Ameren Corporation (4) AEP · American Electric Power Company, Inc. (4) AES · The AES Corporation (3) AFL · Aflac Incorporated (4) AIG · American International Group, Inc. (4) AIZ · Assurant Inc. (4) AJG · Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. (4) AKAM · Akamai Technologies Inc. (4) ALAB · Astera Labs, Inc. (7) ALB · Albemarle Corporation (4) ALGN · Align Technology Inc. (4) ALL · The Allstate Corporation (4) ALLE · Allegion plc (4) ALNY · Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (4) AMAT · Applied Materials Inc. (7) AMCR · Amcor plc (4) AMD · Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (7) AME · AMETEK, Inc. (4) AMGN · Amgen Inc. (2) AMP · Ameriprise Financial Inc. (4) AMT · American Tower Corporation (4) AMZN · Amazon.com Inc. (7) ANET · Arista Networks Inc. (4) AON · Aon plc Class A (4) AOS · A. O. Smith Corporation (4) APA · APA Corporation (4) APD · Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (4) APH · Amphenol Corp. (4) APO · Apollo Global Management Inc. (4) APP · AppLovin Corporation (4) APTV · Aptiv PLC (4) ARE · Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (4) ARES · Ares Management Corp. (4) ARM · Arm Holdings plc ADR (7) ASML · ASML Holding N.V. NY (7) ASTS · AST SpaceMobile Inc. (6) ATO · Atmos Energy Corporation (4) AVGO · Broadcom Inc. (7) AVY · Avery Dennison Corporation (4) AWK · American Water Works Company, Inc. (4) AXON · Axon Enterprise, Inc. (4) AXP · American Express Company (4) AZO · AutoZone, Inc. (4) BA · Boeing Co/The (4) BABA · Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. ADR (6) BAC · Bank of America Corp. (4) BALL · Ball Corporation (4) BAX · Baxter International Inc. (4) BBY · Best Buy Co., Inc. (4) BDX · Becton, Dickinson and Company (4) BE · Bloom Energy Corp. (5) BEN · Franklin Templeton Inc. (4) BF.B · Brown-Forman Corp. (4) BG · Bunge Global SA (4) BIIB · Biogen Inc. (4) BK · The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (4) BKNG · Booking Holdings Inc. (4) BKR · Baker Hughes Company (4) BLDR · Builders FirstSource Inc. (3) BLK · BlackRock Inc. (4) BMNR · BitMine Immersion Technologies, Inc. (5) BMY · Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (3) BNY · Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (3) BR · Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (4) BRK.B · Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class B (4) BRO · Brown & Brown Inc. (4) BSX · Boston Scientific Corp. (3) BX · Blackstone Inc. (4) BXP · BXP, Inc. (4) C · Citigroup Inc. (4) CAH · Cardinal Health Inc. (4) CARR · Carrier Global Corp. (4) CASY · Casey's General Stores, Inc. (4) CAT · Caterpillar Inc. (4) CB · Chubb Limited (4) CBOE · Cboe Global Markets Inc. (4) CBRE · CBRE Group Inc. (4) CCEP · Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC (4) CCI · Crown Castle Inc. (4) CCL · Carnival Corporation Ltd. (4) CDNS · Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (4) CDW · CDW Corporation (3) CEG · Constellation Energy Corporation (4) CF · CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (4) CFG · Citizens Financial Group Inc. (4) CHD · Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (4) CHRW · C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. (4) CHTR · Charter Communications Inc. (4) CI · The Cigna Group (4) CIEN · Ciena Corporation (4) CINF · Cincinnati Financial Corporation (3) CL · Colgate-Palmolive Co. (4) CLX · The Clorox Company (4) CMCSA · Comcast Corp. (4) CME · CME Group Inc. (4) CMG · Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (4) CMI · Cummins Inc. (4) CMS · CMS Energy Corporation (3) CNC · Centene Corp. (4) CNP · CenterPoint Energy, Inc. (4) COF · Capital One Financial Corp. (4) COHR · Coherent Corp. (7) COIN · Coinbase Global Inc. (3) COO · The Cooper Companies, Inc. (3) COP · ConocoPhillips (4) COR · Cencora Inc. (4) COST · Costco Wholesale Corporation (4) CPAY · Corpay Inc. (4) CPRT · Copart, Inc. (4) CPT · Camden Property Trust (4) CRCL · Circle Internet Group Inc. (5) CRDO · Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd (8) CRH · CRH plc (4) CRL · Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (4) CRM · Salesforce, Inc. (4) CRWD · CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. (4) CSCO · Cisco Systems Inc. (4) CSGP · CoStar Group, Inc. (4) CSX · CSX Corporation (4) CTAS · Cintas Corporation (4) CTSH · Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (3) CTVA · Corteva Inc. (4) DELL · Dell Technologies Inc. (6) EWY · iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (6) FLNC · Fluence Energy, Inc. (7) GS · The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (6) HOOD · Robinhood Markets Inc. (7) IBM · International Business Machines Corporation (6) INTC · Intel Corporation (6) IREN · IREN Limited (7) LITE · Lumentum Holdings Inc. (6) META · Meta Platforms Inc. (7) MRVL · Marvell Technology, Inc. (6) MSFT · Microsoft Corporation (7) MSTR · Strategy Inc. (7) MU · Micron Technology Inc. (7) NFLX · Netflix Inc. (8) NOK · Nokia Corporation Sponsored ADR (7) NVDA · NVIDIA Corporation (7) PLTR · Palantir Technologies Inc. (7) PYPL · PayPal Holdings, Inc. (6) QQQ · Invesco QQQ Trust, Series 1 (6) RKLB · Rocket Lab Corporation (4) SKHY · SK hynix Inc. ADR (3) SMCI · Super Micro Computer Inc. (6) SMH · VanEck Semiconductor ETF (4) SNDK · Sandisk Corp. (4) SOXS · Direxion Daily Semiconductor Bear 3X Shares (3) SPCX · Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (3) TSLA · Tesla, Inc. (6) TSM · Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. ADR (5) USAR · USA Rare Earth, Inc. (3)
所选策略概览

BXP · BXP, Inc.

Stock Universe · 全球股票市场
USD · NYSE · XNYS · United States
BXP 0 +3064.90% 1TRAD-TJG5
DevioLab 推荐 · Core 1 iDevioLab 主要推荐:更加防御、平稳且稳定的配置,重点控制风险和回撤。
DevioLab 推荐 · Core 2 iDevioLab 更激进的推荐:接受更高风险和更深回撤,以换取潜在更高回报。
79交易
83.5%胜率
+4.87%平均交易
+27.31%最佳交易
-15.25%最差交易
+167.3%年化
策略分析档案 · e8de526ed18ba1ba

Quantitative Evaluation of BXP · BXP High-Precision Medium-Term Algorithmic Strategy

An in-depth statistical analysis of the core 15-minute algorithmic trading strategy for BXP, examining its 83.54% historical win rate, 6.25 profit factor, and patient medium-term position management across nearly seven years of backtested data. The study analyzes the strategy's low trade frequency of 11.5 entries per year, controlled 15.25% maximum drawdown, and well-distributed return profile where the top three winning trades account for only 17.63% of gross profit.

分析日期: 25.09.2026. 策略数据单独更新。
阅读完整分析

Strategy profile

The BXP core quantitative strategy represents a selective, swing-oriented algorithmic model engineered for the equity market asset BXP on a 15-minute candle evaluation window. Despite utilizing a granular 15-minute price sampling interval, the execution logic operates with significant patience, seeking high-conviction structural shifts rather than frequent micro-fluctuations. Over a multi-year historical dataset spanning from September 16, 2019 to July 29, 2026—representing approximately 6.87 years of market observation—the strategy generated 79 completed trade cycles. Out of these 79 positions, 66 closed in profit while 13 closed in a loss, yielding an exceptional historical win rate of 83.54%. Achieving a DevioLab Score of 86.91 and ranking first overall among models evaluated for the BXP ticker, this algorithm demonstrates a refined profile characterized by substantial cumulative performance. The total backtested net historical output reached 3064.90% with an annualized return metric of 167.27%. The structural architecture of this core strategy makes it particularly compelling for deployment within automated trading bots, trading robots, or automated trading agents designed to execute systematic equity swing trades without requiring continuous high-frequency order placement.

Trading rhythm and position duration

A critical structural characteristic of this quantitative model is its measured pace and extended holding duration. The historical statistics reflect a highly selective filtering process: over nearly seven full years, the algorithm engaged in only 79 completed trades. This translates to an average annual trade frequency of 11.5 trades per year, or approximately 1.46 trades per active month. Investors or automated trading agents deploying this framework must anticipate extended intervals of inactivity between trading signals. The spatial separation between trade closes reinforces this selective approach. The historical average time between trade exits stands at 31.65 days, with a median inter-exit period of 20.94 days. Position holding durations further illustrate the swing-trading nature of the system. The mean holding time per trade is 336.28 hours, equivalent to roughly 14.0 days, while the median holding duration is 169.50 hours, or approximately 7.06 days. The positive skew between median and average holding times indicates that while routine profitable exits frequently occur within one to two weeks, the algorithm allows exceptional trend-following opportunities to remain open for significantly longer periods to extract maximum market movement.

Quality of historical results

Evaluating the distribution and quality of closed trade returns reveals that the performance of the BXP algorithm is built upon strong broad-based consistency rather than isolated outlier gains. The system achieved a historical profit factor of 6.25, indicating that total gross realized profits exceeded total gross realized losses by more than six times. The average closed trade result stands at +4.87%, which aligns remarkably well with the median trade outcome of +4.56%. This tight alignment between mean and median expectations demonstrates that typical operational trades closely resemble average performance, offering predictable trade-level dynamics. Furthermore, the maximum single winning trade achieved over the historical sample was +27.31%, while the worst realized trade was -15.25%. An essential metric of structural integrity is the concentration of gross profit: the three largest winning trades collectively generated only 17.63% of the strategy's total gross profit. This low concentration ratio confirms that historical profitability was distributed naturally across dozens of successful trades over the years rather than dependent on a few fortunate market shocks, providing quantitative confirmation of systematic performance durability.

Risk, drawdown and losing behavior

Downside risk control is a central feature of the strategy's historical performance. Over the entire 6.87-year testing window, the maximum peak-to-trough historical drawdown reached 15.25%. Notably, this maximum historical equity drawdown exactly matches the magnitude of the single worst trade loss (-15.25%), indicating that peak drawdown was primarily driven by a single adverse position exit rather than a compounding chain of multiple consecutive losses. The algorithm's loss management is further evidenced by its streak dynamics. The strategy recorded a maximum consecutive losing streak of only 2 trades across its entire history. In contrast, its longest consecutive winning streak reached 16 closed trades. With 66 total winning trades out of 79, the strategy demonstrates a resilient equity curve trajectory. For systematic operators and trading robots, this combination of an 83.54% win rate, brief losing sequences, and bounded drawdown profile minimizes capital stress during unfavorable market phases.

Behavior through time and yearly stability

A year-by-year examination of backtested trade results demonstrates remarkable temporal consistency across varying equity market cycles. In 2019, during the initial partial testing window starting in September, the strategy completed 1 trade with a 100% win rate (+5.75%). In 2020, amidst heightened market volatility, the strategy executed 14 trades, winning 12 and losing 2 (85.71% win rate), accumulating a combined annual trade gain of +103.81%. Performance remained robust in 2021, generating +61.73% across 15 trades with an 86.67% win rate (13 wins, 2 losses). During the challenging macroeconomic environment of 2022, the model sustained excellent precision, taking 12 trades with 11 wins and 1 loss (91.67% win rate) to produce a net combined trade total of +33.70%. In 2023, the system delivered +44.86% across 11 trades (8 wins, 3 losses, 72.73% win rate). Continuing into 2024, it closed 11 trades with 9 wins and 2 losses (+48.94%, 81.82% win rate), followed by 2025 where 12 trades delivered 10 wins and 2 losses (+60.31%, 83.33% win rate). In the partial year of 2026, the strategy completed 3 trades with 2 wins and 1 loss (+25.70%, 66.67% win rate). The multi-year distribution highlights consistent capital growth across multiple annual cycles without any negative full-year performance.

Recent period since 2024-06-01 versus full history

Analyzing performance during the recent sample period starting June 1, 2024 provides vital insight into the current applicability of the quantitative logic. Since June 1, 2024, the strategy completed 21 trades, yielding an aggregate combined return sum of +120.61%. This recent window accounts for over 26.5% of the total 79 completed trades in the entire multi-year history. Comparing the recent operational pace with full-history baseline norms confirms that signal generation has remained fully active. The recent completion of 21 trades within roughly two calendar years reflects an execution cadence aligned with its overall historical average of 11.5 trades per year. The sustained high output of +120.61% during this recent timeframe indicates that the underlying market inefficiencies exploited by the algorithm on BXP remain active and statistically effective in contemporary market conditions.

Strengths and limitations

The strategy exhibits clear structural strengths alongside notable operational limitations. Among its primary advantages is an exceptional hit rate (83.54%) paired with a high profit factor (6.25), proving that win rate has not been artificially inflated by sacrificing risk-reward proportions. Additional strengths include a broad distribution of gains across trades (top 3 winners account for only 17.63% of gross profit), a modest historical maximum drawdown of 15.25%, and consistent yearly performance across multiple market regimes. Conversely, the primary operational limitation is the low total trade frequency. With only 79 completed positions over nearly seven years, statistical sample size considerations apply, requiring trading agents and quantitative analysts to recognize that individual trade outcomes carry significant weight. Furthermore, average holding durations exceeding 14 days require patient capital allocation, unsuited for market participants seeking daily action or ultra-short-term turnover.

DevioLab analytical conclusion

The DevioLab core quantitative model for BXP presents a compelling, highly disciplined swing-trading framework. Achieving the number-one rank for the asset with a DevioLab Score of 86.91, the algorithm succeeds by prioritizing signal selectivity over trade volume. Its ability to maintain an 83.54% win rate while keeping maximum historical drawdown to 15.25% underscores an effective balance between downside risk mitigation and upside capture. For institutional strategy designers, individual quantitative traders, and automated trading bots operating on BXP, this model offers a robust foundational logic. Its structural characteristics favor deployment within trading robots configured for patient, multi-day holding patterns where trade execution quality and low exposure frequency take priority over turnover speed.

Data scope and methodology

This analysis is derived entirely from historical backtested execution data for the BXP 15-minute quantitative strategy spanning September 16, 2019 through July 29, 2026. All reported statistics, including trade counts, win rates, holding durations, drawdowns, and annualized metrics, represent historical simulated closed trades under standard modeling parameters. The results reflect historical mathematical model output and do not represent live brokerage account execution, actual account return, or guaranteed future profitability. Slippage, commission rates, and exchange fees vary by execution platform and are not explicitly modeled within raw performance metrics.

完整策略分析