Skip to content
Important: BestFolio provides information for educational purposes only. Nothing on this site constitutes investment advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Read full disclaimer
·4 min read·BestFolio Research Team

Updated

Our quiet flagship: the Momentum-Correlation Triplet, and its new 1.5x version

When someone asks me which strategy to look at first on BestFolio, my answer has been the same for a while: the Momentum-Correlation Triplet. It has the best combination of return, calm, and evidence in our catalog, and as of last week it comes in a levered version that makes it meaningfully juicier. This post is the full introduction it never properly got.

There's an odd fact hiding in yesterday's popularity study that makes this overdue. Only 5.0% of members who build their own portfolios hold the Triplet, while the most popular picks sit above 30%. Our own quiet flagship is one of the most overlooked strategies on the site.

What the Triplet actually does

Once a month it scores a 14-asset global universe on momentum over 3, 6, and 12 months and takes the 5 leaders. Then comes the step that gives it its name: from those 5, it keeps the 3 that moved least alike over the past 252 trading days. Momentum finds what's working; the correlation step makes sure the 3 winners don't all fail together. An absolute-momentum cash filter pulls the whole portfolio to safety when nothing is trending up. Equal weights, monthly rebalance, every rule public on the strategy page with free backtest data.

Why I call it the flagship

Across 38.8 years, from 1987-10-30 to 2026-08-31, the standard version compounds at 14.82% with a 1.23 Sharpe ratio. $10,000 becomes $2,140,888. The deepest drawdown in almost 4 decades is -17.66%, and its deflated Sharpe, the score that marks down results for how many strategies we tested to find them, is 0.99, scored against the 270 variants we have tested. The risk label on the card says moderate, and for once the label undersells it.

The defense record is my favorite part. 2008 and 2020 barely register on the equity curve, because the cash filter stepped aside both times. The worst stretch is actually a sideways grind from April 2015 to January 2016, when trends kept starting and failing. A strategy whose worst enemy is boredom rather than a crash is a strategy you can actually hold.

The new part: same strategy, 1.5x the exposure

Last week we shipped Triplet SmartLeverage 1.5x. It changes none of the decisions. Same monthly picks, same correlation step, same cash filter; it simply holds leveraged funds in place of regular ones where a liquid leveraged fund exists. Here's what that does over the same 38.8 years:

Triplet StandardTriplet SmartLeverage 1.5x
CAGR14.82%18.77%
$10,000 becomes$2,140,888$7,979,504
Sharpe ratio1.231.10
Max drawdown-17.66%-25.53%
Annualized volatility12.4%17.6%
Deflated Sharpe0.990.95
Four bars: CAGR 1.27 times Standard, volatility 1.42, drawdown magnitude 1.45 and Sharpe 0.89. Dashed reference at the nominal 1.5x target.
Over the published window, SmartLeverage/Standard ratios were 1.27 for CAGR, 1.42 for volatility, 1.45 for drawdown magnitude and 0.89 for Sharpe. The nominal exposure target is a reference, not a claim that all metrics scale linearly.

The 2nd row is the case in 1 line: 3.96 extra points of CAGR compound into 3.7x more ending money. The price is real but contained: the Sharpe eases from 1.23 to 1.10 and the worst drawdown deepens to -25.53%, still shallower than what buy-and-hold equity investors accepted in 2008 alone. The levered version keeps the thing that makes the Triplet special, because the defenses travel with the signals: it went to cash in the same months the standard version did.

Two-panel chart: log-scale growth of $10,000 for Triplet Standard and the 1.5x version from 1987 to 2026, and their drawdowns below
Month-end sampling on both panels; the headline max drawdown figures come from the full daily series, which cuts deeper than the monthly view shows.

One honesty note on the multiplier. Not every asset in the universe has a leveraged fund we trust: international sleeves, commodities, and TIPS run at 1x, so achieved leverage averages about 1.42x rather than the nominal 1.5x. We'd rather under-lever than route the strategy through funds that can disappear.

Why 1.5x and not more

Because we tested more, and more was worse. Greed had 3 chances in the internal bake-off:

IdeaWhat it doesWhat the full window said
Straight 2x fundsDoubles the levered sleevesSimilar CAGR to 1.5x with more volatility and deeper drawdowns. Dominated.
Gold and managed-futures overlayStacks diversifiers on topStrong after 2020. Over 38 years it adds only 0.6 points of CAGR (15.4% against 14.8%) for a lower Sharpe (1.16 against 1.23) and a deeper worst drawdown (-20.4% against -17.7%). 1.5x buys far more return for that kind of Sharpe cost.
Volatility targetingScales exposure to a 12% vol targetHurt in every window. The Triplet already manages its vol by construction, and trailing-vol rules lever up right before regimes break.

That last row also answers a question we get: running this on margin with your own vol rule is the systematic version of that idea, and it made everything worse. 1.5x through funds is where the extra return stops being paid for sensibly. Past that, you're buying volatility, not wealth.

The recent numbers, kept honest

The 1.5x version is up 22.23% this year and 44.61% over the trailing 12 months. Real numbers, live signals, and also the friendliest 12 months this strategy may ever show you. Judge it on the 38.8-year table above, not on the year we happened to ship it.

Both versions publish monthly signals on BestFolio, and the deflated Sharpe scores come from the same leaderboard, which scores each result against the 270 variants we have tested. Leverage comes from leveraged funds only, never margin. And if yesterday's post showed anything, it's that the gap between what scores well and what gets held is wide: this is me closing it for the 1 strategy I'd show you first.

Corrections

  • : The leaderboard now scores against 270 tested variants (was 269), and the 1.5x version's deflated Sharpe reads 0.95 (was 0.96); the standard version stays at 0.99.
  • : Card figures restated on 16 October 2026: early-1990s international and emerging-market history now uses index data instead of two actively managed funds. Over the post's 1987 to 2026 window the standard version now compounds at 14.82% with a 1.23 Sharpe (was 14.74% and 1.25) and the 1.5x version at 18.77% with a 1.10 Sharpe (was 18.71% and 1.11); the overlay row and the growth chart follow.
  • : The 1.5x column moved with the 5 October 2026 release (leveraged-fund financing and price-basis fixes). Over the post's 1987 to 2026 window it now compounds at 18.71% (was 18.49%) and $10,000 becomes about $7.82M (was $7.28M); Standard is 14.74% and $2,085,067. The gap, ratios and charts follow. Deflated Sharpe now 0.99 (Standard) and 0.96 (1.5x), scored against 269 variants.
  • : The gold and managed-futures overlay row said flat on CAGR. Rerun on 15 October 2026, after the managed-futures history fix and the 10 September SmartStack sizing fix, it adds about 0.7 points a year, still with a lower Sharpe.
  • : Volatility restated on 15 October 2026: the cards now measure it on observed prices, so months rebuilt from monthly data count at their month-end returns instead of as smooth daily steps. Over the post's 1987 to 2026 window, Triplet Standard reads 12.4% (was 12.3%) and SmartLeverage 1.5x 17.6% (was 17.4%). The 1.42 volatility ratio is unchanged.
  • : Corrected the Momentum-Correlation Triplet lookback: the strategy scores on 3, 6 and 12-month returns, not 1, 3, 6 and 12 (reader report, blog comment #1 and support mail of 2026-09-06).
  • : Figures restated on 28 September 2026 (release e9a2a80: backtests hold positions between signals, and pre-1990 fund histories now include dividends and income). Numbers updated to the live strategy cards; the argument is unchanged. Growth figures recomputed on the post's own window.
  • : The September 24, 2026 release corrected backtest history (PRITX replaces a Treasury fund in the 1989 to 1996 international-stock chain, 81 one-day price spikes removed, return-stacked stand-ins now pay financing) and every card was recomputed. Over 1987-10-30 to 2026-08-31 Triplet Standard now compounds at 14.95% (was 14.56%) and SmartLeverage 1.5x at 18.95% (was 18.63%); ending values, Sharpe, volatility and deflated Sharpe updated from the restated cards. Drawdowns are unchanged.

Revision history

  1. Graphs and research review — September 15, 2026

    Add a figure with accessible labels and the study’s original data boundaries; preserve existing prose.

  2. Readable data tables on mobile

    Added horizontal scrolling for wide data tables on small screens. All figures, source notes and article prose are unchanged.

Figure sources

The strategy figures in this post were read from these published backtest runs. Each strategy page shows its latest run, which may differ.

  • momentum-correlation-triplet (mom-corr-triplet-standard), backtest run of 1987-10-30 to 2026-10-15. Engine drift-until-flip-v1, data version 10eeb0a4, published 2026-10-16.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. Backtested results are hypothetical and do not represent actual trading.

Written with the help of AI tools and reviewed before publication.

Discussion

    1. Laurent B.Author

      Thanks Dan, good catch. The strategy page is right: the score is the average of the 3, 6 and 12-month returns, with no 1-month term. This post had it wrong and I've corrected it. Laurent

Readers' views, not investment advice.

Share this article

Data and method

Study dates and assumptions are documented in the article and its revisions. Our current methodology explains the platform's data sources, proxy histories, trade timing and inflation treatment.

  • Overfitting: what it is, why it kills tactical strategies, and why ours survived

    A reader called our flagship an overfitting masterpiece. So we ran the tests that could convict it: 700 parameter configurations, a deliberate cherry-pick, 60 random universes, and a post-publication study of 63 strategies. Our published settings ranked 2nd of 700, the pre-2019 ranking predicted nothing about what followed, and the decay evidence leans one way without proving it.

  • Is that Sharpe real? Inside the Robustness score

    Every strategy on BestFolio carries a Robustness score: the probability its Sharpe is a real edge rather than the luckiest pick among the 202 variants we tested, released or not. Here's how it works, which of our own strategies it flags, and why every score just dropped a notch.

  • A Backtest Has More Than One Start Date: Golden Ratio Rolling Starts

    Golden Ratio Dual Gate compounds at 20.5% over the full backtest, yet its rolling 5-year outcomes ranged from 12.2% to 33.0% depending on the start month. We replayed all 160 eligible starts, lump sum and DCA, from the production series.

Explore with tools

Try these strategies on BestFolio

Browse 81 tactical allocation strategies with monthly signals, walk-forward validation, and portfolio blending. Free to start.

Create free account

BestFolio Monthly Briefing

Liked this post? Get a free monthly recap of TAA strategy signals, performance rankings, and market regime updates. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.