Back to Blog
channelssignal copiertelegramanalyticstransparency

How Our Channel Ratings Grade Every Signal Provider A–F

Public win-rate, profit factor, drawdown and parse-rate grades for every Telegram channel we've ever processed — refreshed nightly with AI-written reviews. Here's exactly how the grade is computed.

2026-05-12 6 min readBy TradeJournal Team

Most signal providers will show you the wins. Almost none will show you the losses, the drawdown, or the months where they were down 12%.

That's why we built Channel Ratings: a public, free directory at [/channels](/channels) where every Telegram (and Discord) signal channel we've ever processed gets a public A through F grade based on real, executed signals over a 90-day rolling window. Grades update nightly. No hand-picking. No paid placement.

This post explains exactly what the grade measures, how to read it, and why it changes the way you should subscribe to providers.

The five inputs that build a grade

A grade is a weighted blend of five public metrics. Every metric is computed from signals the channel actually posted — not back-tests, not screenshots.

MetricWeightWhat it measures
Parse rate15%What percentage of posted messages were valid, executable signals (vs. updates, news, "good luck team" posts).
Execution rate10%Of the valid signals, how many actually got filled when AutoTrade was on.
Win rate25%Closed trades that hit a TP before SL — over the last 90 days.
Profit factor25%Gross profit ÷ gross loss. Above 1.5 is healthy. Below 1.0 means the channel lost money.
Risk/reward ratio15%Average reward per unit of risk. A 50% win rate with R:R 2.0 still makes money.
Max drawdown10%Peak-to-trough equity drop. Punishes blow-up channels.
The weighted score maps to a letter:

  • A+ / A — top 10%. Profit factor > 1.8, win rate > 60%, max DD < 8%.
  • B — solidly profitable. PF 1.4–1.8, WR 50–60%.
  • C — breakeven. PF 1.0–1.4. Probably not worth subscribing.
  • D — losing channel. PF below 1.0 but still parseable.
  • F — losing AND messy. Low parse rate or high drawdown.
  • Why "parse rate" is in the grade

    A channel can post the world's most accurate signals — but if 60% of the messages are unparseable noise ("guys we're up 200 pips this week 🚀🚀🚀"), your copier won't execute them. The grade reflects what you'd actually trade, not what the channel claims to call.

    A channel that posts ten clean signals a week consistently beats a channel that posts forty messages where only six are real entries.

    The AI-written review

    Beside each grade we publish an AI-generated, plain-English review. Claude reads the last 90 days of signals on the channel and writes a paragraph covering:

  • The pairs the channel actually trades (not what their bio claims)
  • Average signal quality — does SL/TP get specified, or is it vague?
  • Time-of-day patterns (London-session bias? Asia? Random?)
  • How consistent the position sizing instructions are
  • Any red flags — martingale instructions, "add to losers", missing SL on big movers
  • The review rebuilds nightly, so a channel that was great in Q1 but went off the rails in Q2 will see its review (and grade) reflect that within 24 hours.

    How to use the ratings before subscribing

    The page at [/channels](/channels) is sortable and filterable. Two recommended flows:

    If you want a new provider:

  • Filter by grade ≥ B.
  • Sort by profit factor (PF) descending.
  • Read the AI review. If anything in there is a red flag for you, skip.
  • Click "Sandbox this channel". The channel starts paper-trading in your account — no real money — so you get a personal 7-day track record before committing.
  • If you're already subscribed to channels:

  • Search for each of your active channels.
  • If any of them have a grade below C, ask yourself: am I subscribed because of recent results, or out of habit?
  • Switch lower-grade channels into paper-trading mode (free) and watch them for a month. If they don't recover, drop them.
  • How channels can improve their grade

    We get this question often from signal providers. The honest answer:

  • Post fewer, higher-quality signals. A channel with 8 clean entries per week and 65% win rate grades higher than one with 30 messy entries per week and the same win rate.
  • Always include SL. Signals without a stop-loss tank parse rate AND profit factor (because traders manage them inconsistently).
  • Be specific about lot sizing. "Risk 1%" parses better than "trade small".
  • Don't post during news. The model penalises drawdown contributors, and high-impact news is the #1 source of slippage that wrecks profit factor.
  • The point of all this

    Most signal-copier tools just execute signals. None of the others tell you whether the signal channel is any good. That's how traders end up paying $50/month for a $30-channel subscription that loses them $400 — and never realising the channel was the problem.

    A public grade, refreshed nightly, with the math shown in the open, changes that. Before you connect a channel, [check its grade](/channels). After 90 days, check it again. Drop the F's. Keep the A's.

    Trading is hard enough without the provider lying to you.

    Start your free trading journal today

    Track every trade, analyze your performance with real data, and build the habits that create consistent profitability.

    Get Started Free

    No credit card required