The 9 20 EMA strategy is one of the most-shared setups on trading social media: when the 9-period exponential moving average is above the 20, wait for price to pull back to the 20 EMA and buy the bounce. It sounds like it should work in a market that trends up as persistently as the Nasdaq. We tested a clean, rules-based version on daily Nasdaq-100 futures (NQ) from June 7, 2010 to April 16, 2026 to find out how well.
The idea behind an EMA pullback
A trend pullback strategy tries to solve the main problem with breakout systems: buying high. Instead of chasing a new high, you wait for the trend to "breathe" back to a moving average and join it there. The 9 EMA / 20 EMA pair is popular because the 9 tracks price closely and the 20 acts as a dynamic support line. There's no single inventor; it's a community staple.
Exact rules for the 9 20 EMA strategy we tested
- Timeframe: daily bars (not intraday; more on that below).
- Trend filter: 9 EMA of the close is above the 20 EMA.
- Pullback trigger: the day's low trades at or below the 20 EMA...
- ...but the close finishes back above the 20 EMA. Buy at that close.
- Exit: the 9 EMA closes below the 20 EMA (a bearish 9 EMA / 20 EMA crossover). Sell at that close.
- Long only. No hard stop, no profit target. One position at a time.
- Costs: 1.0 NQ point per round trip.
All results are in NQ index points per 1 contract. A Micro E-mini Nasdaq-100 (MNQ) contract is worth $2 per point and a full NQ contract $20 per point, so MNQ dollars below are simply points × 2. Every trade has 1.0 point deducted per round trip to cover slippage and commission.
9 20 EMA pullback results on NQ
| Metric | 9/20 EMA pullback (daily) |
|---|---|
| Trades | 100 |
| Win rate | 36.0% |
| Avg trade (pts) | +92.92 |
| Total (pts) | +9,291.8 |
| Profit factor | 1.75 |
| Closed-trade drawdown (pts) | 2,634.8 |
| Avg win / avg loss (pts) | 603.67 / -194.38 |
| MNQ total ($, 1 contract) | $18,584 |
| Points 2010–2019 | +1,596.5 |
| Points 2020–2026 | +7,695.2 |
| Profit factor 2020–2026 | 1.89 |
Buy and hold over the same span made 24,677.2 points.
What the numbers say
The EMA pullback made 9,291.8 points on 100 trades with a profit factor of 1.75. On one MNQ contract, $18,584. That's a solid result for a two-line rule set, but look at how it gets there. The win rate was only 36.0%. Nearly two out of three trades lost. What saved it was the payoff: the average winner was 603.67 points against an average loser of -194.38, better than 3 to 1.
That matters for anyone who wants to trade it. A 36% win rate means long losing streaks are normal, not a sign the strategy is broken. Most people who "try" a pullback strategy quit during exactly those streaks.
It also trailed buy and hold, capturing about 37.7% of the points. That's the cost of only being in the market when the 9 is above the 20 and a pullback has happened.
A note on drawdown: the figure we report is closed-trade drawdown, the worst peak-to-trough of the equity curve built only from finished trades. It ignores how far an open position sank before it was closed, so for a system that holds for weeks it understates the pain you would actually sit through.
Robustness: the trend pullback was a 2020s story
This is where the 9 20 EMA strategy gets uncomfortable. In 2010–2019 it made only 1,596.5 points, with losing years in 2011 (-433.2), 2012 (-150.2), 2015 (-358.2) and 2018 (-823.5). In 2020–2026 it made 7,695.2 points with a profit factor of 1.89, powered by two big years: 3,345.5 points in 2020 and 4,163.0 in 2023. Part of that is simply that NQ's price, and therefore its point swings, got much larger. Part of it is that 2020 and 2023 were powerful, smooth trends, exactly what a pullback system is built for. Choppy years like 2022 (-1,387.8) hurt.
Daily vs intraday 9 EMA 20 EMA crossover setups
Many traders run this setup on 5-minute or 15-minute charts. We tested daily bars only, so these numbers say nothing directly about intraday use. Intraday you'd also face much higher cost as a share of each trade, since one point of slippage and commission is a bigger bite out of a 20-point move than a 600-point one.
Our take: The 9/20 EMA pullback is a legitimate trend-following long strategy on daily Nasdaq futures, but it's not the high-win-rate "buy the dip" machine social media sells. It wins about a third of the time and makes its money on a few big trends. The weak 2010s result is a warning: if the next decade looks more like 2011–2018 than 2020–2025, expect a lot less. We'd also add a hard stop before trading it live; the backtest's only exit is a moving-average cross, which can lag badly in a sharp drop.
For comparison on the same data, see the Supertrend 10 3 test and the golden cross vs 20/50 crossover.
What this backtest does not model
- Roll gaps. The test runs on a continuous front-month NQ series, so quarterly contract rolls can create small artificial price jumps.
- Perfect fills. Signals are computed on the daily close and filled at that same close. In real life you need to act in the last minutes of the session or accept the next open.
- Overnight and weekend risk is in the price series, but position sizing, margin calls and psychological stamina through deep open drawdowns are not.
- No taxes or financing costs are modeled beyond the 1-point round-trip deduction.
This is a backtest on one instrument. Past results do not guarantee future results, and nothing here is financial advice.
Key takeaways
- The daily 9/20 EMA pullback made 9,291.8 NQ points on 100 trades, PF 1.75.
- Win rate was just 36.0%; big winners (avg 603.67 pts) carried it.
- Most of the profit came in 2020–2026 (7,695.2 pts vs 1,596.5 in 2010–2019).
- It captured about 38% of buy-and-hold points.
- Tested on daily bars only; no hard stop in the rules.
Put the research to work on your Desk
Explore the tools behind the research, compare the available access, or open your Desk if you already have an account.
FAQ
Does the 9 20 EMA strategy work?
On daily NQ futures from 2010 to 2026, a 9/20 EMA pullback made 9,291.8 points with a 1.75 profit factor, but with only a 36.0% win rate and most gains after 2020.
What is the win rate of the 9 20 EMA pullback?
36.0% in our test. It made money because the average winner (603.67 pts) was over three times the average loser (194.38 pts).
Can I use the 9 20 EMA strategy for day trading?
We only tested daily bars, so we can't say. Intraday, costs take a much bigger share of each trade.
What stop loss should I use with an EMA pullback?
Our test had no hard stop; it exited only when the 9 EMA closed below the 20 EMA. We'd add one before trading live, but we haven't tested which works best.
Loomi.Ai provides educational market research, not financial advice. Trading futures and options involves substantial risk of loss, and backtested results are historical and do not guarantee future returns.
Sources
- Loomi backtest: blog_strategy_tests.py + results JSON, Loomi research