The short answer
Gold X9 by Mr CapFree and The Gold Reaper by Profalgo trade in a very similar way on our data: gold only, several sub-strategies running side by side, short holding times, often up or down on the same days. The Gold Reaper costs 949 $, Gold X9 69.99 $.
They are still not the same. Gold X9 shows more basket closes in the fingerprint, occasional opposite positions and a much longer loss tail, and there is no vendor live record. The Gold Reaper has almost two years of public signal and has been running calmly on our account since March 2026. Our scores: The Gold Reaper 4.4 (green), Gold X9 3.1 (yellow).
What “similar” means here and what it does not: we show a similar trading pattern on our data. We do not claim that Gold X9 is a copy of The Gold Reaper.
Our live comparison
We run both EAs on our own accounts in our EA park:
- The Gold Reaper: live account at IC Markets (MT5), since 18 March 2026, running alone on the account.
- Gold X9, current account: real-money account at Vantage (MT5), since 30 September 2026, running alone.
- Gold X9, first account: real-money account at Vantage (MT5), from 8 to 28 September 2026, then stopped. The account was shared: Quantum Queen and Onyx ran on it too. Only Gold X9's trades are counted, separated by magic number and order comment.
To be clear: Gold X9 has only been running with us for four weeks, spread over two accounts. We stopped the first account on 28 September; the second has been running since 30 September. Together that is 61 trades. The Gold Reaper has a good six months more on its account. Every statement about Gold X9 therefore comes with the caveat of a small sample.
Our live comparison · own accounts
As of 05 October 2026 · updated weekly
| Metric | The Gold ReaperLive · IC Markets · ••9665 | Gold X9Live · Vantage · ••9898 | Gold X9Live · Vantage · ••8873 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared account | no, runs alone | yes, with Quantum Queen and Onyx (Str) · 12.9 % of the trades | no, runs alone |
| Deposit | $8,866.53 | $501.39 | $1,000.49 |
| First trade | 18 Mar 2026 | 8 Sept 2026 | 30 Sept 2026 |
| Last trade | 2 Oct 2026 | 28 Sept 2026 | 5 Oct 2026 |
| Run time | 199 days | 21 days | 6 days |
| Trades | 207 | 36 | 25 |
| Net | +$4,460.45 | +$151.91 | −$210.99 |
| Net as % of deposit | +50.3 % | +30.3 % | −21.1 % |
| Net since 8 Sept | +$1,705.74 | +$151.91 | −$210.99 |
| Profit factor | 2.11 | 1.88 | 0.13 |
| Win rate | 67.2 % | 75.0 % | 48.0 % |
| Closed drawdown (this EA only) | 8.1 % · $716.87 | 25.2 % · $126.24 | 21.2 % · $211.58 |
| Status | trading | ended, terminal off · last trade 28 Sept | trading |
- The Gold Reaper · Live · IC Markets · ••9665
- Gold X9 · Live · Vantage · ••9898
- Gold X9 · Live · Vantage · ••8873
Cumulative closed P/L since 08 September 2026, as % of deposit
Cumulative closed P/L since 08 September 2026, in USD
On 7 days both EAs closed trades, on 6 of them with the same sign (both up or both down). With this few days it is a hint, not a reliable correlation.
- The accounts differ in size and run time. That is why we show the curve twice: as a percentage of the deposit (comparable) and in USD (what was actually made or lost).
- The curves start at the shared start, the first trading day of the younger EA. The figures since each account’s own start are in the table.
- Closed trades only, no open positions. A grid-like EA can sit considerably deeper in the red in between than the curve shows.
- On a shared account the percentages refer to the deposit of the whole account.
Source: our EA park, read from the ATS Space Tracker (Waterline). Account numbers shortened.
Two things stand out. First, the accounts are very different in size, and The Gold Reaper has been running a good six months longer. That is why the curve appears twice: as a percentage of the deposit so it can be compared, and in dollars so you can see what is at stake. Second, the two move together strikingly often. On 28 September, for example, both closed their best day in the comparison window, and on 2 October both closed at a loss. With so few shared days that is a hint, not statistics.
Why the two are alike
Same construction
| Feature | The Gold Reaper | Gold X9 |
|---|---|---|
| Market | XAUUSD only | XAUUSD only |
| Sub-strategies | 8 | 9 |
| Order comment | “The Gold Reaper_XAUUSD_1” to “_8” | “Gold X9 by MrCapFree_XAUUSD_1” to “_9” |
| Magic numbers: offset from the base | 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 | 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
| Entry per the vendor | breakouts of important support and resistance levels, several timeframes at once, several internal strategies | breakouts of previous swing highs and lows, several timeframes, nine strategies |
| Exit per the vendor | stop-loss and take profit on every trade, both trailed | stop-loss and take profit at entry, both trailed, plus a breakeven |
| Lot size on our accounts | 0.04 on average, at most 0.15, no lot escalation in baskets | fixed 0.01, no lot escalation in baskets |
Sources: order comments and magic numbers from our own accounts (as of 5 October 2026), descriptions from The Gold Reaper's MQL5 product page and, for Gold X9, from the launch video including the vendor's replies in the comments, the build video of 1 October and the Settings Guide v6.2 from the purchase package.
The magic numbers are the most striking point. Each sub-strategy gets its own number, and both EAs apparently build it from a base number plus a fixed offset. For The Gold Reaper there are eight offsets between 1 and 15; for Gold X9 the same eight plus 13. A pattern like that does not arise from the trading idea by chance; it sits in the program structure. What follows from it is discussed below under “What the similarity means”.
Similar fingerprint
For every EA on our accounts the tracker computes a “fingerprint” from its closed trades: how long trades are held, how often it trades, whether positions are stacked and closed together, at what time of day it opens. The table shows both EAs side by side; the last column explains what each metric measures.
| Metric | The Gold Reaper••9665 · 207 trades | Gold X9••9898 · 36 trades | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sub-strategies | 8 | 9 | distinct magic numbers, i.e. instances running side by side |
| Holding time | 1.6 h | 1.5 h | average from open to close |
| Trades per day | 1.1 | 1.8 | over the whole measuring span |
| Win rate | 67.1 % | 75.0 % | share of trades closed in profit |
| Fixed stop-loss | not detected | not detected | losses of similar size in pips, as a fixed stop leaves them |
| Loss tail | 6.1× | 40.7× | large loss (95th percentile) divided by the typical loss (median) |
| Open at once | 4 | 3 | most staggered positions open at the same time |
| Basket closes | 2.9 % | 13.9 % | trades closed within 3 seconds together with others — typical of grids |
| Lot escalation | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | baskets with rising lot size — typical of martingale |
| Hedge | 0.0 % | 5.6 % | trades while an opposite position was open |
| FIFO violations | 14.5 % | 22.2 % | closes out of opening order (US rule) |
| Night (21–06 UTC) | 35.3 % | 58.3 % | share of opens in the Asian session |
| London (07–12 UTC) | 10.1 % | 2.8 % | share of opens |
| New York (13–18 UTC) | 39.6 % | 16.7 % | share of opens |
| Long share | 40.1 % | 16.7 % | share of buys among all trades |
| Measuring span | 198 days | 20 days | days between first and last trade |
What the fingerprints have in common:
- Holding time: both hold trades for about an hour and a half on average. That is neither scalping in seconds nor swing trading over days, but a short breakout trade within one session.
- Frequency: both trade once or twice a day on average, and not at all on some days.
- No fixed stop visible: for both, losses vary widely in pips. A fixed stop-loss would leave losses of similar size. For The Gold Reaper the vendor says every trade has a stop-loss and a take profit, both trailed. Trailing stops can produce exactly this picture. For Gold X9 the vendor's settings guide describes almost word for word the same: stop-loss and take profit at entry, both trailed, plus a breakeven. In the build video he gives strategy 9 a stop at 2% and a target at 0.7% of the gold price.
- No lot escalation: neither of the two increases the lots within a basket. Neither is a martingale.
On top of that comes the lockstep behaviour. When several sub-strategies react to the same breakout, they win or lose together. On 28 September both had their best day in the comparison window; on Gold X9 seven of the nine sub-strategies closed trades that day, on The Gold Reaper at least four of the eight. On Gold X9's current account all six sub-strategies that have traded so far are down; five of them each lost between 21 and 73 dollars on 2 October alone.
The differences
| Point | The Gold Reaper | Gold X9 |
|---|---|---|
| Our score | 4.4 · green | 3.1 · yellow |
| Price | 949 $ (MQL5 and AlgoTradingSpace) | 69.99 $ (own shop on Fourthwall) |
| Seller | Profalgo Limited (Malta), 27 products on the MQL5 Market | Mr CapFree, YouTube channel and own shop |
| On the market since | 1 February 2024 (MQL5), currently version 5.1 | video of 8 August 2026, version 6.2 according to the vendor |
| Public vendor live signal | yes, MQL5 signal since October 2024 | no |
| Reviews | 4.48 out of 5 from 115 MQL5 reviews | no review function in the shop, mixed YouTube comments |
| Licence | MQL5 activations | ex5 file without licence binding |
| Default setting | automatic trade frequency, maximum drawdown of your choice | risk profile “Very High Risk”, lot size derived from a 30% allowed total drawdown |
| Worst measured drawdown | 16.9 % | 25.2 % |
The Gold Reaper's price, version, release date and reviews: MQL5 product page, read on 5 October 2026. Gold X9: the vendor's shop, videos and settings guide (v6.2), read the same day. Worst drawdown: the worst figure from any source we have read; for Gold X9 its own drawdown on our shared live account.
And in the fingerprint (table above):
- Session: Gold X9 opens more than half of its trades at night between 21:00 and 06:00 UTC, in the quiet Asian session. The Gold Reaper trades much more in the New York session, when US data moves the gold price. That is the biggest difference in the trading pattern.
- Long share: The Gold Reaper has around 40% buys, Gold X9 only around 17% on our live account. With 36 trades in three weeks that may simply reflect the market phase; no structural short bias can be read from it.
- Basket closes: Gold X9 closes just under 14% of its trades together with others in a basket, The Gold Reaper around 3%. From 10% the tracker classifies a pattern as a grid. With so few trades that is a provisional call for Gold X9: if several sub-strategies enter on the same breakout, they can exit together at the same target without any grid. The difference from The Gold Reaper is still there.
- Loss tail: Gold X9's largest loss was about 40 times the typical loss, The Gold Reaper's about 6 times. That is the difference that costs the most money when things go wrong: with Gold X9 a single bad trade can eat the gains of many good days. The cause lies in the design: a stop almost three times as far away as the target costs as much as several wins when it is hit.
- Hedge: Gold X9 had an opposite position open at the same time on a good 5% of its trades, The Gold Reaper never. For US accounts and some prop firms that rules it out.
- Run time and evidence: The Gold Reaper's fingerprint rests on a good 200 trades over more than six months, Gold X9's on 36 trades over three weeks. Every Gold X9 figure can still shift considerably over the coming weeks.
What the similarity means and what it does not
What it means: on our data, buying Gold X9 means buying essentially the same approach as The Gold Reaper: short gold breakouts with several sub-strategies running side by side and trailed exits. It also means both EAs probably share the same weaknesses: false breakouts cost money, and several sub-strategies lose together on the same day. And running both essentially means running a bigger gold position, not two strategies.
What it does not mean:
- No statement about origin. Similar trading data and similar numbering do not prove that code was taken over. The Gold Reaper's vendor writes on his own product page that many developers now build their own versions of his breakout approach. Gold X9's vendor presents the EA as his own system, developed over three years. We can neither refute nor confirm either account, and we do not try. We are happy to add statements from either vendor.
- Not the same quality. A similar entry does not mean similar risk. The difference in the loss tail and in basket closes shows that Gold X9 handles losing trades differently.
- No substitute for a track record. The similarity does not transfer The Gold Reaper's almost two years of live signal to Gold X9. What Gold X9 can do live, it has to show by itself.
Verdict
The Gold Reaper and Gold X9 trade alike on our data, but they are not equivalent. The Gold Reaper is expensive but evidenced: a public signal, a calm account of our own, a short loss tail. Gold X9 is cheap but unevidenced: no vendor signal, four weeks on two real-money accounts of our own that are slightly down combined, and a fingerprint with grid traits. If you want to get into the approach cheaply, test Gold X9 with the demo version first and then run it small with a hard equity stop. If you already have The Gold Reaper, you do not need Gold X9. We keep both running and update the live comparison weekly.
The individual reviews: The Gold Reaper review · Gold X9 review · all gold EAs in the guide Best gold EA 2026.