Is the Golden Cross Profitable on Forex? 280 Moving Average Tests

Use two moving averages: buy when the fast line crosses above the slow line and sell when it crosses below. Those are the golden-cross and dead-cross rules tested here.

The variables are the two periods, the averaging method and the timeframe. This article writes a fast period of 10 and a slow period of 20 as 10/20.

We tested 56 period pairs with five averaging methods, giving 280 settings. Each was backtested on 15-minute, one-hour and four-hour USD/JPY data for 2024 and 2025.

The largest 2025 annual net result was 12/50 weighted (WMA) on the 15-minute chart: 751 trades, a 33.95% win rate and +2,978.0 pips. On the four-hour chart, however, profitable settings fell from 243 of 280 in 2024 to 60 in 2025. The timeframe and whether price sustained one direction mattered more than selecting one period pair.

20252024box: middle 50%; line: min to max; white tick: median; right: settings profitable in both years

What a crossover actually measures

A moving average is the last n bars smoothed into one line. Lengthen the period and the line drifts further from price and takes longer to change direction.

Watching two of them cross means watching which smoothing is on top, and taking the moment they change places. They change places when recent price has moved far enough away from the older average, which makes a crossover a proxy for "the trend may have turned".

The rule has three parameters.

On the one-hour chart in 2025, a slow period of 20 averaged 398 trades and a slow period of 200 averaged 108. Hull moving averages (HMA) averaged 455 trades and smoothed moving averages (SMMA) 86. Both periods and methods change trade frequency.

How to put two moving averages on a chart

Moving averages overlay the price chart. Add one fast line and one slow line, then set the period and method of each.

The five methods tested are simple (SMA), exponential (EMA), weighted (WMA), smoothed (SMMA) and Hull (HMA). HMA is not built into MT4 or MT5.

How this was tested

The test used these conditions.

The main grid uses the same method on both lines. Mixed methods are tested separately.

Holding to the opposite crossover with no stop keeps this a test of the crossover rather than of the crossover plus an exit. Stops and targets get their own section.

Which timeframe should you use?

The four-hour chart varied most between years, leaving 32 of 280 profitable in both. The same 280 settings were run on each timeframe.

On the four-hour chart, profitable settings fell from 243/280 in 2024 to 60/280 in 2025. The median annual net result reversed from +2,151 pips to −1,153, and only 32/280 were profitable in both years.

The number profitable in both years was 205/280 on the 15-minute chart and 172/280 on the one-hour chart. More settings held up across both years than on the four-hour chart.

The path of price differed between the two years. USD/JPY rose 1,632 pips from the start to the end of 2024. In 2025, the year-end price was 56 pips below the year-opening price. The high-to-low ranges were still similar at 2,237 and 1,900 pips. Price sustained an upward direction in 2024, while in 2025 it moved widely but finished near where it began. A moving-average crossover benefits from a sustained direction, and that difference affected the four-hour results most.

How the common period pairs performed

These are the annual net results for common period pairs.

On the 15-minute chart, 25/75 SMA moved from +3,613.7 pips in 2024 to −1,023.1 in 2025. On the one-hour chart, 5/20 SMA moved from +3,744.7 to −484.9 pips. The familiar period pairs did not repeat the same result in both years.

The 10/20 SMA default was profitable in both years on the 15-minute and one-hour charts. On the four-hour chart it lost in both years: −1,336.2 pips in 2025 and −1,245.7 pips in 2024.

Did the 50/200 golden cross work?

Its result rests on too few trades to judge. The common 50/200 SMA pair produced these results.

The 71.43% win rate on the four-hour chart in 2024 is five wins from seven trades. That sample is too small to establish an edge. On the one-hour chart, annual net pips reversed from +2,435.4 in 2024 to −1,340.4 in 2025.

Is a longer slow line better?

Lengthening it widened the gap between the two years. The next table groups the one-hour results by slow period.

2025 (−56 pips from year open to close)2024 (+1,632 pips from year open to close)mean of settings sharing the same slow period, one-hour chart

All 30 settings with a slow period of 25 were profitable in both years. At a slow period of 200, only 4 of 40 were. The slow-200 mean changed from +1,964 pips in 2024 to −1,179 in 2025. Longer slow periods produced a wider difference between the two years.

On the 15-minute chart, 24 of 40 settings with a slow period of 200 were profitable in both years. The effect was smaller than on the one-hour chart, so the timeframe also changed the result.

Does last year's best repeat?

It did not. The best 2024 setting on each timeframe was run unchanged in 2025.

The 2024 winner lost money in 2025 on the 15-minute and four-hour charts and finished below the 2025 median. The one-hour winner remained profitable but only slightly exceeded the median. Choosing the previous year's winner did not reproduce the previous year's result.

Which moving average type is best?

It changes with the timeframe: EMA on M15, HMA on H1, SMMA on H4. The table counts settings that were profitable in both 2024 and 2025. Each method has 56 settings.

The largest counts were EMA at 52/56 on the 15-minute chart, HMA at 49/56 on the one-hour chart and SMMA at 13/56 on the four-hour chart. HMA fell to 13/56 on the 15-minute chart and averaged 1,852 trades there, compared with 324 to 875 for the other four methods. Method selection therefore needs the profitable-setting count and trade count for the specific timeframe.

SMA versus EMA at identical periods

An SMA gives the last n closes equal weight and drops anything older. An EMA gives more weight to recent closes and lets older observations fade rather than disappear at a fixed boundary. That is the basis for calling the EMA "faster", but a faster response does not automatically produce a better trading result.

To separate method from every other choice, we paired SMA and EMA runs with the same fast period, slow period, timeframe and test window. The comparison contains 672 one-to-one matches.

The EMA produced more annual net pips in 318 of 672 comparisons and the SMA in 354. The EMA took fewer trades in 405. It tended to reduce frequency, but it did not finish ahead on annual net pips.

The EMA left slightly more settings profitable in both years on M15 and H1, while H4 was tied. The method with higher annual net pips in 2024 repeated in fewer than half of the 56 period pairs on every timeframe. The 10/20 pair on M15 shows the reversal plainly: in 2025 the SMA made +1,015.0 pips and the EMA +2,052.3; in 2024 the SMA made +1,600.9 and the EMA +1,183.0. The winning method changed with the year, so last year's result is not a sound reason to lock in EMA or SMA.

The full SMA versus EMA test covers the weight profiles, response timing and sensitivity to starting history behind these results.

What if the two lines use different types?

The longer period can move faster, reversing the roles of the two lines. We tested the 25 fast-method and slow-method combinations on the one-hour chart. The figure shows each moving average's mean distance from the close.

SMMASMAEMAWMAHMAmean distance from the close in pips; smaller means closer and faster

A 20-period HMA sat 18.7 pips from the close, while a 10-period SMA sat 22.1 pips away. The longer HMA was closer to price, so using HMA only on the slow line of a 10/20 pair made that line react faster.

On the one-hour chart in 2024, 10/20 with SMA fast and HMA slow lost 3,393.4 pips over 385 trades. Reversing the methods made +3,739.2 pips over 397 trades. When the two lines use different methods, the periods alone do not identify which line reacts faster.

Does a higher win rate mean more profit?

Not consistently. On the 15-minute chart, the highest win rate came from 15/20 HMA: 44.22% over 2,680 trades, yet it lost 755.1 pips. The annual-net leader, 12/50 WMA, won only 33.95% of its trades. Its average winner was +56.74 pips and its average loser −23.17, so the size of the winners offset the lower win rate.

The four-hour results even include a 100% win rate, but it came from only two trades. Win rate needs to be read together with trade count and annual net pips.

Filters, stops and targets

Two 15-minute settings, with the filters that usually get suggested.

ADX ≥ 25 increased annual net pips from +1,600.9 to +1,847.9 in 2024, but changed +1,015.0 to −271.0 in 2025. Restricting trades to Tokyo hours also helped in 2024 and hurt in 2025. Neither filter improved both years.

Stops, targets and a time exit were tested on two 15-minute settings.

For both settings and in both years, the opposite-crossover exit produced the largest annual net result.

On the one-hour chart, however, a 30-pip stop and 90-pip target on 10/20 SMA made +1,260.9 pips in 2025 versus +377.4 unmodified. The same exit underperformed in 2024. The result changed with the timeframe and year.

What does the spread take?

Re-running 2025 with nothing but the spread changed:

Increasing the spread from 0 to 2.0 pips reduced the 15-minute 10/20 SMA result by 2,804.0 pips, exactly 1,402 trades × 2.0 pips. Spread cost scales with trade count.

The 15-minute 10/20 SMA was near break-even at a 1.0-pip spread and lost money at 1.5. The lower-frequency 12/50 WMA still returned +1,701.3 pips at a 2.0-pip spread. Short-timeframe results need to be checked against the actual spread paid.

Related reading

• SMA versus EMA
• GMMA settings tested
• Moving-average disparity settings tested
• DMI/ADX periods and thresholds tested

Notes

• The test covers USD/JPY in 2024 and 2025. Other pairs and periods were not tested
• Entries and exits use bar closes. Actual fill prices may differ
• The spread is fixed at 0.3 pips. Real spreads change by session and around economic releases
• A slow period of 200 uses 200 bars from before the test window. A chart with less history may not produce the same line