Compare Players
Side-by-side analysis of all participants
Rank Changes Over Time
See how positions shifted throughout the competition
Risk vs Return
Higher returns don't always mean higher risk — find the efficient players
Capital Use Comparison
How much capital each player has allocated over time (0% = all cash, 50% = all capital invested, 100% = fully invested with margin)
Strategy Comparison
| Player | Return | Volatility | Sharpe | Max Drawdown | Win Rate | Trades | Days #1 | Days in Last | Median Holdings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zach Zimmermann | +32.19% | 1.88% | 17.09 | -16.49% | 42% | 963 | 222 | 0 | 4 |
Matthew Etheridge | +14.56% | 0.45% | 32.05 | -3.49% | 43% | 6 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
Hudson Kim | +9.07% | 0.41% | 22.09 | -3.16% | 36% | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Jack Lagas | -4.88% | 0.51% | -9.60 | -9.59% | 34% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
My Balls | -36.35% | 5.25% | -6.92 | -56.60% | 33% | 1 | 0 | 132 | 1 |
Cooper Palmer | -46.10% | 3.03% | -15.23 | -54.80% | 28% | 2 | 0 | 21 | 2 |
koby pfonner | -50.13% | 6.00% | -8.35 | -84.43% | 30% | 1 | 16 | 84 | 1 |
Active vs Passive
Zach Zimmermann963 trades+32.19%
Matthew Etheridge6 trades+14.56%
Hudson Kim2 trades+9.07%
Cooper Palmer2 trades-46.10%
Jack Lagas1 trades-4.88%
My Balls1 trades-36.35%
koby pfonner1 trades-50.13%
More trades don't guarantee better returns. In this case, Zach Zimmermann's 963 trades outperformed all of the passive investors.
Concentration Risk
Jack LagasNTDOF
100%
My BallsBA
100%
koby pfonnerCMG
100%
Cooper PalmerDJT
85%
Hudson KimINTC
64%
Matthew EtheridgeVIG
45%
Zach ZimmermannQQQ
40%
High concentration (Cooper: 85% DJT) led to massive losses when positions went against them.