Backtesting Research Library · Comparative Study 01

Same market. Approximately aligned risk. Very different payoff behavior.

Skyline V1.0 at 2 lots is compared with a 25-point iron condor at 1 lot across matched SPX 0DTE backtests from July 23, 2024 through July 22, 2026.

Skyline V1.0 · Historical performance +$71,618 433 paired daily deployments · 53.6% profitable
25-point iron condor · Historical performance +$20,805 433 deployments · 87.8% profitable
The central finding: Skyline’s lower deployment win rate did not prevent stronger cumulative results. Its historical profile was carried by payoff asymmetry and consistency over longer calendar horizons—not by winning almost every day.
Structure comparison

Modeled payoff geometry

This Options Engineering OS view compares the study quantities, modeled capital at risk, and expiration payoff geometry of both structures.

Options Engineering OS structure and risk comparison

Study configuration: Skyline 2 lots versus iron condor 1 lot. Modeled CAR is $1,680 versus $2,053, so Skyline uses approximately 18% less modeled capital at risk. The sizing is approximately CAR-aligned, but not exactly equal-CAR. The image illustrates payoff geometry, not historical performance.

CAR normalization

Close enough to compare—different enough to disclose

Skyline V1.0 · 2 lots

$1,680 modeled CAR

82% of the condor’s modeled CAR in the OS comparison.

25-point iron condor · 1 lot

$2,053 modeled CAR

Capital-at-risk reference for the study configuration.

The historical results are shown at their actual tested quantities. They were not rescaled to fabricate a perfectly equal-CAR backtest. Any P/L-per-$1,000-CAR figure is descriptive normalization, not a separately executed test.
Historical performance

Performance across multiple time horizons

A $10,000 starting account grew to $81,618 with Skyline versus $30,805 with the iron condor.
Account growth · $10,000 starting balance Jul 2024 Jul 2026 Skyline V1.0 25-point iron condor
Skyline produced the higher return in every measured period.
Return by study horizon 716.2% 208.1% 2 year 350.0% 116.2% 1 year 203.6% 68.2% 2026 YTD Skyline Iron condor
The advantage shifted from daily win rate to monthly and quarterly consistency.
Profitable periods by measurement horizon 53.6% 87.8% Deployment 56.2% 75.2% Week 76.0% 68.0% Month 100.0% 77.8% Quarter Skyline Iron condor
76.0% Skyline profitable months (19/25)
100.0% Skyline profitable quarters (9/9)
$1,170 Skyline average winning deployment
-$995 Skyline average losing deployment
Normalized metrics

Compare outcomes without hiding the sizing basis

Metric Skyline · 2 lots Iron condor · 1 lot
Modeled CAR reference $1,680 $2,053
Net P/L $71,618 $20,805
P/L per $1,000 modeled CAR $42,630 $10,134
Deployments 433 paired days 433
Profitable deployments 53.6% 87.8%
Average winner $1,170 $218
Average loser -$995 -$1,190
Maximum drawdown -41.4% -64.4%
Profitable weeks 56.2% (59/105) 75.2% (79/105)
Profitable months 76.0% (19/25) 68.0% (17/25)
Profitable quarters 100.0% (9/9) 77.8% (7/9)
Strategy-specific discipline

Skyline V1.0 was tested as a hold-to-expiration process

The study’s Skyline results assume the paired call-side and put-side structures are treated as one daily deployment and held to expiration. That discipline matters because the payoff map can move through uncomfortable intraday valleys before resolving.

This section is not a general claim that discipline creates performance. It documents the behavior required by this specific historical test. Live discretionary exits, late entries, omitted sides, altered sizing, or mid-session adjustments would represent a different strategy.

Methodology

How the comparison was constructed

Matched window

July 23, 2024–July 22, 2026, with 433 complete Skyline deployment days.

Entry and exit

SPX 0DTE; 9:45 a.m. ET entry; expiration/4:00 p.m. close in the supplied logs.

Skyline unit

Two component rows—call-side and put-side—are combined by date into one deployment.

Backtest records

Historical backtest records were exported from Option Omega. The Options Engineer calculated the summary charts and metrics from those records.

Payoff modeling

The structure comparison was produced in Options Engineering OS using the study quantities and modeled capital-at-risk values. It illustrates payoff geometry rather than historical performance.

Independent review

Results are hypothetical and unaudited. Option Omega has not independently reviewed, verified, or endorsed this study.

Important: Backtested results are hypothetical and have inherent limitations. They do not represent actual trading and may not reflect commissions, exchange fees, slippage, liquidity constraints, execution delays, skipped days, behavioral deviations, or changing market regimes. Options involve substantial risk, including the full defined loss. This material is educational research, not personalized investment advice or a recommendation.