Peer group

Average strategy performance is one of the most common shortcuts in portfolio research. It gives the researcher a clean benchmark, a single reference line, and a simple way to compare one strategy against a broader group of similar strategies. In many cases, this is useful. But it can also be misleading.

This case study shows how Quantpedia API can be used to go beyond the average peer group return and measure yearly performance dispersion across a group of trend-following strategies. The goal is not only to ask how the average strategy performed, but also how different the individual strategies were from each other.

A single backtest can show that strategy was profitable, but it does not always show whether the strategy was competitive. This is especially true for systematic futures strategies. A trend-following strategy can have a positive Sharpe ratio, a long live-like performance history, and a reasonable drawdown, but those numbers are difficult to interpret without a relevant comparison group.
A broad equity index is often not the right benchmark for this type of strategy. A monthly rebalanced multi-asset futures strategy has a different objective, different risk profile, and different return drivers than a long-only stock index. A more useful question is whether the strategy performs well compared with other systematic trend-following futures strategies.
This case study shows how the Quantpedia API can be used to build a custom peer group benchmark for strategy evaluation. The workflow has two steps. First, Quantpedia strategy metadata is used to screen and define a comparable peer group. Second, the historical equity curves of the selected strategies are downloaded, converted into daily returns, and aggregated into an equal-weighted peer group benchmark.