Category
Risk
Difficulty
Beginner
Used in
Risk managementStrategy designEA evaluation

Risk/reward ratio

The ratio of potential profit to potential loss on a single trade, calculated as take-profit distance divided by stop-loss distance. It fixes the win rate a strategy needs in order to break even.

also: RR ratio, R:R, reward-risk ratio, risk-reward, reward-to-risk

Updated · Reviewed · Reviewed by mt5depot research desk

In plain English

How much a trade can make against how much it can lose, chosen before it opens. On its own the number says nothing about whether a strategy is any good — it only says how often that strategy has to be right.

Why it matters

Risk/reward and win rate are two halves of one sentence, and quoting either half alone is how misleading EA marketing works. Once you fix the ratio, arithmetic rather than opinion decides the win rate a strategy must clear to break even.

  • It turns a win rate into a verdict. A 31% win rate sounds poor until the ratio reaches 3:1, where breakeven sits at 25% and the strategy runs comfortably ahead.
  • You choose it in advance, which makes it the one risk number that is not an estimate. Stop distance and target distance are inputs; every other figure on the page arrives after the fact.
  • It sets the shape of the equity curve. High ratios buy long losing runs punctuated by large wins; low ratios buy frequent small wins and rare painful losses — the same expectancy, two very different experiences.
  • It is the number a marketer can most easily repaint after entry. Widening a target or dragging a stop changes the ratio a trade gets reported at without changing the decision anyone actually made.
  • Nothing about it predicts profitability on its own. Across our 23 published backtest records the win rate and the profit factor correlate at just 0.37, so the pair a listing quotes carries far more information than either figure alone.

How it is calculated

Risk/reward = Take-profit distance ÷ Stop-loss distance
Take-profit distance
Entry price to target, in pips. A trailing exit has no fixed target, so its ratio has to come from the average realised win rather than from a declared number.
Stop-loss distance
Entry price to stop, in pips. A strategy with no stop has no defined ratio at all, because the denominator becomes the whole account.
Breakeven win rate
The share of trades a strategy must win to finish flat at that ratio, before costs. At 1:1 it needs 50%, at 2:1 it needs 33.3%, at 3:1 it needs 25%.
Realised risk/reward
Average winning trade divided by average losing trade, read off the results instead of the settings. The MT5 Strategy Tester never prints a risk/reward row, so derive it from two rows that it does print: profit factor × (1 − win rate) ÷ win rate.

Measure both distances from the intended entry price in the same units — pips or points, never one of each. The companion formula matters more in practice: breakeven win rate = 1 ÷ (1 + risk/reward). Spread and commission widen the loss and shorten the gain, so the real breakeven always sits above the arithmetic one.

What counts as high or low

  • under 1:1 Breakeven above 50% and climbing as the ratio falls — at 0.5:1 it already takes two wins in three, rarely durable once costs arrive
  • 1:1 Breakeven at 50%. Workable, but leaves no room for slippage or a losing streak
  • 1.5:1 Breakeven at 40%. The common range for mean-reversion and intraday systems
  • 2:1 Breakeven at 33.3%. Typical of trend systems that hold through noise
  • 3:1 and above Breakeven at 25% or less. Sustainable only where the account and the trader survive long losing runs

Read it together with

No single number describes a strategy. These metrics change how this one should be read.

Example

An EA enters at 150.00 with a stop 20 pips away and a target 40 pips away. The ratio follows from the two distances, and the breakeven win rate follows from the ratio.

Stop-loss distance
20 pips
Take-profit distance
40 pips
Risk/reward
2.0
Breakeven win rate
33.3%
Before spread and commission. With costs the real figure sits a few points higher.

Give the same EA a 40-pip stop and it needs half its trades instead. Nothing about the entry logic changed.

Calculation 40 ÷ 20 = 2.0 · 1 ÷ (1 + 2.0) = 0.333

Result Risk/reward 2:1 — the strategy must win one trade in three to break even

How to interpret it

A risk/reward ratio only means something beside the win rate measured over the same trades. Read the pair, and read it on realised results rather than on declared settings.

Range What it means
Quoted without a win rate Says nothing. Any ratio can belong to a profitable or an unprofitable strategy; only the pair decides which.
Declared ratio far above the realised one The strategy never reaches its targets. A trailing stop, a time exit or manual intervention closes trades short of the take-profit.
Win rate comfortably above the breakeven the ratio implies The margin between the two is the strategy edge in its clearest form.
Win rate within a few points of breakeven Costs alone can erase it. Spread and commission push the breakeven line upward, and slippage pushes it further.
Ratio quoted from inputs on a symbol with a wide minimum stop distance Check what the broker accepted. A stop the server refuses never reaches the market at the distance the input claims.
  • Derive the realised ratio before trusting the declared one. Divide the average winning trade by the average losing trade in the trade ledger, or take profit factor × (1 − win rate) ÷ win rate straight from the tester summary. Any gap between that figure and the settings marks where the strategy stops obeying its own inputs.
  • Add costs before judging. A 1:1 ratio on a pair with a two-pip spread and a 20-pip stop needs roughly 55% wins, not 50%.
  • Treat the denominator as a distribution, not a constant. Across our 23 published listings the worst single loss ran a median 1.89× the average loss, and reached 10.2× on one record, so sizing a high ratio off the average loss understates what one trade can take.
  • Budget for the losing run a high ratio buys. The same 23 records show a median worst losing streak of 8 trades and a longest of 38, which is 38 consecutive invitations to switch the EA off at the wrong moment.
  • Check the broker floor before designing a tight stop. `SymbolInfoInteger(_Symbol, SYMBOL_TRADE_STOPS_LEVEL)` returns the minimum distance the server accepts for a stop or a target; a well-built EA widens the stop to that floor rather than sending an order the server rejects, and a widened stop quietly lowers the ratio the EA advertises.
  • Distrust a ratio produced under coarse modelling. The M1 OHLC model interpolates movement inside each minute, so a bar that spanned both the stop and the target resolves by assumption — and tight stops paired with distant targets meet that assumption most often.
  • Beware any strategy with no stop at all. It reports an attractive ratio right up to the trade that never closes, because nobody ever defined the denominator.

Every EA listing here states its stop and target rules and publishes the full closed-trade ledger, so a reader can compare the declared ratio against the realised one instead of taking either on trust.

Common mistakes

Treating a high ratio as a good strategy

A 10:1 ratio with a 5% win rate loses money steadily. The ratio only sets the bar; the win rate decides whether the strategy clears it, and the two move in opposite directions as the target travels further out.

Assuming both halves of the fraction hold still

A declared ratio needs a fixed stop and a fixed target, and across the 24 records in our exit-shape study only 7 clear that bar on both sides at once. The median record keeps 83.78% of its losing exits within 2% of that symbol's median losing distance, but only 26.30% of its winning exits. For most records the denominator behaves like a constant and the numerator behaves like a distribution.

Widening the target after entry

Pushing a take-profit further away improves the ratio on paper without improving the trade. Only the ratio in force at the moment of entry describes a decision anybody actually made.

Forgetting that a fixed target truncates the tail

Truncate each of those same 24 records at its own middle winner and 62.83% of gross profit survives at the median — so the missing 37% lived entirely in winners larger than the middle one. A tidy 2:1 target buys a predictable ratio by handing that 37% back, which is a fair trade only when you know you are making it.

Ignoring spread and commission

Costs subtract from the win and add to the loss, so they hit both sides of the fraction. On short-distance scalping settings they can turn a 1.5:1 ratio into something close to 1:1.

Comparing ratios across different holding times

A 2:1 collected over minutes and a 2:1 collected over a week are not equivalent. The longer trade ties up margin, carries swap and takes overnight gap risk that the ratio never describes.

In depth

MetaTrader 5 never prints a risk/reward row, which is why so few EA listings quote one. The Strategy Tester gives you the ingredients instead: profit factor and the percentage of profitable trades. Multiply the profit factor by (1 − win rate) and divide by the win rate, and you have the realised reward-to-risk of that run — the average winner measured against the average loser, expressed in the units the report already uses.

Run that on two profitable EAs from our backtest records and the spread is startling:

ListingWin rateProfit factorRealised risk/reward
Nautical (EUR/JPY)30.6%1.21≈ 2.74
Gyre (AUD/CAD)82.52%1.60≈ 0.34

Both records made money. Their realised ratios sit roughly eight times apart, which is the clearest available demonstration that the ratio ranks nothing on its own. Nautical wins less than a third of the time and needs a big average winner to survive it; Gyre wins four times out of five and can afford an average loser bigger than its average winner. Read either number without its partner and you would reach the wrong conclusion about both.

Frequently asked questions

What is a good risk/reward ratio for an MT5 EA?
No single value counts as good, because the ratio is only half of the statement. What matters is the margin between the strategy's measured win rate and the breakeven win rate its ratio implies — 1 ÷ (1 + ratio). A 1.5:1 system winning 55% of its trades stands in better shape than a 3:1 system winning 24%. Our own catalogue makes the point: two profitable listings sit at roughly 2.74 and 0.34 on the realised measure, an eight-fold spread with no verdict attached.
What win rate do I need at 2:1?
33.3% before costs. Spread, commission and slippage all push the line upward, so budget for a few points more than the arithmetic figure, and more again on short stop distances where costs loom large against the risk.
Where does MetaTrader 5 show the risk/reward ratio?
Nowhere directly. Neither the Strategy Tester summary nor the Toolbox History tab carries a risk/reward row. Two routes get you there. Divide the average winning trade by the average losing trade in the results block, or take the profit factor and the win rate the same report prints and compute profit factor × (1 − win rate) ÷ win rate. Both describe what the EA achieved; neither describes what its inputs asked for, and the gap between the two is the interesting part.
Can an EA be profitable with a low win rate?
Yes, and many trend-following EAs are. Winning under a third of trades sits perfectly well with a rising equity curve when the average win runs several times the average loss. The trade-off is long losing runs — a psychological problem as much as a financial one, and the reason a ratio needs a worst-streak figure beside it.
How do I find the real risk/reward of an EA I did not write?
Read it off the results rather than the inputs: average winning trade divided by average losing trade in the tester report or the trade ledger. If that figure sits well below the ratio the settings imply, something closes trades before they reach the target. Check the broker's minimum stop distance too, because an EA that widens a rejected stop to the server floor trades a different ratio from the one on its settings page.
Does a higher risk/reward ratio reduce risk?
No, it redistributes it. Pushing the target further out lowers the breakeven win rate, and it lengthens the losing runs you must sit through to collect that lower bar. The money at stake per trade does not move at all, because the stop distance and the lot size set that between them. Only position sizing changes what a losing run costs; the ratio only changes how often one arrives.