Super Tenet MT5 Review: Gold Strategy, Basket Controls and Backtests
Super Tenet MT5 trades XAUUSD on M1 using configurable Delta or Volume analysis, higher-timeframe moving-average filtering and dynamic position management. Trailing stops, multi-level take-profit logic and a total-basket target provide several ways to manage exits.
Our assessment: Super Tenet offers more explicit signal and basket controls than its brief marketing introduction suggests. The appeal is configurable gold execution and exit management. The limitation is verification: its smooth historical curve and one short customer review do not establish long-term live performance.
View Super Tenet MT5 features and pricing
- Developer source link: Super Tenet MT5 on MQL5
- Live signal link: No public web signal linked at our 17 September 2026 check. The developer provides terminal investor access in the source listing, which has not been independently audited here.
- Release notes: Current developer update history
Delta or Volume analysis with a trend filter
The listed inputs include a calculation source, lookback, adaptive or fixed mode, Z threshold and minimum volume. These expose useful configuration choices without revealing enough detail to reconstruct the strategy. The source does not establish that Delta or Volume refers to consolidated exchange data; avoid reading those labels as proof of institutional order-flow access.
The optional moving-average filter has its own period, timeframe, method and applied price. Signal-bar selection controls which candle confirms an entry. Maximum spread and slippage settings address execution conditions, but do not ensure a fill at the desired price. A fast M1 strategy should be assessed with the intended broker’s costs and symbols.
Position management and release history
The June 2026 release history adds an on-chart panel and a four-level take-profit system that chooses a level by the number of open trades. The main description also lists a global basket target and trailing-start/distance inputs. These features make the result dependent on the whole set of positions, not only the quality of each entry.
Later notes add time restrictions, monthly profit percentage, M1 confirmation on 19 July, news filtering on 23 July and a candle-body filter on 10 August. The public overview does not fully define sizing or a hard total-account loss cap. A basket profit target and trailing function should not be treated as equivalent to a guaranteed maximum loss.
Reading the original backtest
The gallery curve is labelled 2022–19 July 2026 with a $1,500 deposit. Its companion report shows 99% history quality, $25,726.09 net profit, a 6.61 profit factor and 20,325 trades. Those figures are developer-supplied simulated results, not an audited live account.
Relative equity drawdown is 4.12%, compared with 1.14% relative balance drawdown. Another maximal-equity-drawdown line shows $437.01 (3.00%); these are different report measures, so quoting only 3% would omit the larger relative figure. Average profit per winning trade is $1.76 and expected payoff is $1.27 in the report, making cost and execution assumptions especially relevant.
Why the testing method matters
The developer recommends high-quality real-tick data, but also suggests one-minute OHLC testing if results or data quality are problematic. Switching modelling modes is not a validation of the same intrabar behaviour. M1 entries and trailing can depend on the tick sequence, so a favourable OHLC run should not replace a realistic tick and forward test. The gallery predates the August candle-body update and cannot establish its effect.
Live access, promises and customer feedback
The listing provides investor access for two Ultima Markets terminal accounts, including one labelled high risk. That is not a linked independently monitored web signal, and we have not logged into or audited those accounts. The developer also advertises a private roadmap and bundled products for direct purchases; those claims are not evidence of a capped-loss result or included extras in this separate offer.
One MQL5 review was visible at our check: Alexander Seidel’s brief positive comment dated 9 June 2026. It supplies no settings, account history or drawdown detail and predates several subsequent changes. The comments page contained no discussion. There is no basis to turn this single opinion into a broad claim of proven reliability.
From the same developer: Tenet Scalp MT5 · Tenet Scalp MT5 review · Blox EA MT4. These are separate products; one product’s historical results do not validate the others.