RESOURCES / BACKTESTING FOUNDATION
Supported Markets and Assets
PortfolioBacktest is designed for international users comparing US-market portfolios across mainstream asset types.
Questions about supported markets & assets.
Which instruments are the supported coverage designed for?
The coverage is organized around mainstream US-listed stocks, ETFs, bond funds, and physically backed gold exposure that can be combined in a portfolio. The emphasis is multi-asset comparison rather than isolated price prediction. A user can compare a broad equity sleeve, a Treasury or investment-grade bond sleeve, and gold under the same dates and rules. The exact symbol still matters: an ETF proxy represents its own traded implementation, not every index or fund with a similar label.
Why does the product use portfolio implementations instead of abstract asset classes?
A portfolio decision is implemented through investable instruments with a specific history, fee structure, liquidity profile, and data coverage. Using a disclosed ETF or stock symbol makes those boundaries inspectable. It also avoids silently combining an index back to a date before the chosen instrument existed. The report states whether a result uses an ETF implementation, an equity basket, or a fund-mandate profile. This makes comparisons more honest: the result describes the tested proxy and its available data, not an imaginary frictionless asset class.
Can I compare stocks, bonds, gold, and ETFs in one test?
Yes, when each symbol has a compatible price history and the portfolio rules define how the sleeves are valued and rebalanced. The engine aligns common observation dates and applies the same initial capital and schedule to each variant. The comparison can then show whether a change in equity, bond, or gold weight altered return, drawdown, volatility, or relative performance. It does not imply that the assets share the same economic role. The point is to measure the portfolio-level trade-off created by a specified combination.
What happens when an asset has limited historical coverage?
The usable backtest window is limited by the first common observation date, or the limitation is disclosed when a comparison uses a proxy. The tool should not fill an unavailable history with a later fund’s performance and present it as continuous evidence. If an index-like concept predates the ETF, the report can explain that the test is an ETF implementation rather than an index reconstruction. Coverage is therefore part of the result’s meaning: a shorter window may make a conclusion more sensitive to one market regime.
Which markets and features are outside the current boundary?
The current product is not a brokerage, execution venue, or personalized advisory service. It does not promise complete coverage of mainland China A-shares, derivatives, leverage, intraday data, tax lots, or every international exchange. It also does not claim that a fund-mandate profile rewrites an ETF’s historical holdings. These boundaries are intentional. A transparent limitation helps a user decide whether the tested instrument answers the actual question or whether a different data source and specialist tool are required.