October 4, 2025. A trader deposits $10,000 into a live account and runs Quantum Queen EA. Twelve days later, the account has $3.40. Not a typo — three dollars and forty cents.
The same EA, running on a different account since April 2024, has generated $9,625 in verified real withdrawals and is still running today. Two years. Still live. Still profitable.
Same EA. Two completely different outcomes. The difference is not luck — it is setup. And if you are considering running Quantum Queen with real capital, understanding exactly what caused that 12-day blow-up is the only analysis worth reading before you open your wallet.
Disclosure: This review analyses four separate verified Myfxbook accounts running Quantum Queen — including the blown account the vendor will never show you. The methodology is the same 10-point Myfxbook verification framework described in the Myfxbook statement reading guide. I have not personally run this EA — this is a data analysis, not a personal testimonial.
What Is Quantum Queen EA?
Quantum Queen is a commercial MT5 forex Expert Advisor marketed as a technical, automated trading system. It trades currency pairs, primarily EUR-related pairs, using algorithmic entries and exits. The EA is available for purchase and is one of the more actively tracked systems on Myfxbook, with the primary verified account (bogdanion) accumulating 196 followers since April 2024.
The vendor positions it as a consistent monthly return system. The Myfxbook data across multiple accounts tells a more nuanced story.
4 Myfxbook Accounts Presenting Quantum Queen EA: Side by Side
| Account | Type | Broker | Gain | Monthly | Max DD | Equity | Withdrawals | Track Record | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| bogdanion | Real ✅ | MT5 | +2,093% | 13.11% | 25.47% | 100% | $9,625 | 2 years | ✅ Best case |
| GiangFX9292 | Real ✅ | XM | -96.60% | -96.60% | 97.06% | 100% | $9,900 | 12 days | ❌ Blown |
| PikCapik | Real ✅ | FBS | +244% | 36.75% | 28.26% | 100% | $23,952 | ~7 months | ⚠️ Aggressive |
| BEEFOREXEA | Demo ⚠️ | JustMarkets | +95.51% | 11.98% | 2.79% | 100% | $0 | ~7 months | ⚠️ Demo only |
Account 1: bogdanion: The 2-Year Real Account (Best Case)
Quantum Queen EA Myfxbook – bogdanion real account 2024-2026 showing +2093% gain, 25.47% drawdown, $9,625 withdrawals
Verification: Real (USD) | MT5 | Track Record ✅ | Trading Privileges ✅ | Live Update ⚠️ (not active) | Updated 15 minutes ago
Key numbers: +2,093% gain | 13.11% monthly | 25.47% max drawdown | $7,210 deposits | $9,625 withdrawals | Started April 2024
This is the strongest piece of evidence in favour of Quantum Queen, a 2-year real account with $9,625 in verified real withdrawals against $7,210 in deposits. The net cash position is positive: more money has been extracted from this account than was ever deposited. That is not a dashboard number. That is confirmed real profit.
The equity curve deserves specific attention. It is jagged with visible pullbacks, the characteristic shape of a system that closes losing trades at market pace rather than holding them open to defer losses. The equity and growth lines track closely throughout, confirming no significant hidden floating drawdown at any point in the 2-year history. This is the most important health check for any EA, and this account passes it.
The sharp acceleration visible on the far right of the chart from late 2025 onward is notable — the growth curve steepens significantly. This likely reflects lot size scaling as the account grew, which increases both return potential and drawdown risk proportionally.
What concerns me: Live Update is not active — data does not sync continuously. The 25.47% maximum drawdown means a $10,000 account running this system at equivalent settings would see approximately $2,500 in peak-to-trough decline at worst drawdown. The 2-year track record is solid but has not yet been tested through a full bear market cycle or a sustained low-volatility regime.
Account 2: GiangFX9292: The Blown Account (Worst Case)
Verification: Real (USD) | XM | MT5 | Track Record ✅ | Trading Privileges ✅
Key numbers: -96.60% | 97.06% max drawdown | $10,000 deposit | $9,900 withdrawals | Active: October 4–16, 2025 — 12 days
This account is the most important data point in this entire review. And it is the one no vendor’s marketing page will show you.
The same EA that produced +2,093% in two years on Account 1 destroyed 97% of a $10,000 account in 12 days on Account 2. The equity curve shows a brief period of slight gains followed by a steep, uninterrupted decline to near-zero. There are no recovery bounces. There is no partial recovery. The account went from $10,000 to $3.40.
The $9,900 in withdrawals is misleading at first glance. this was not profit. The account owner clearly withdrew the vast majority of funds before or during the blow-up, salvaging approximately $9,900 before the remaining $100 was wiped. The account was not saved by the EA. It was partially saved by the human recognising the loss and withdrawing.
The equity curve shape on this account shows the opposite of Account 1: a rapid, sustained directional move against the position with no recovery. This is consistent with a grid or position-averaging system caught in a strong trend it could not handle, the exact scenario described in the martingale risk analysis.
What this tells us: The difference between Account 1 and Account 2 is not luck. It is setup. Account 1 ran for 2 years successfully. Account 2 ran for 12 days and blew up. The EA is the same. The broker (XM vs unspecified MT5), the lot sizing, and the risk configuration are different. This is the critical variable every potential buyer needs to understand before running Quantum Queen with real capital.
Account 3 — PikCapik: Aggressive but Profitable
Verification: Real (USD) | FBS | MT5 | Track Record ✅ | Trading Privileges ✅ | Live Update ⚠️
Key numbers: +244% gain | 36.75% monthly | 28.26% max drawdown | $15,106 deposits | $23,952 withdrawals | Started October 2025
A 36.75% monthly average is extremely aggressive — this is not a conservative setup. But $23,952 in verified withdrawals against $15,106 in deposits confirms real net profit was generated and extracted. The account balance is now nearly empty ($31.11), which means the owner systematically withdrew profits as they were generated rather than compounding — a deliberate capital management decision, not a blow-up.
The equity curve shows a sharp rise to a peak of $12,769 in November 2025, followed by what appears to be drawdown before recovering. The yellow equity growth line tracks the red balance curve closely, confirming no large hidden floating losses at any point.
What concerns me: 36.75% monthly is not sustainable at controlled drawdown over the long term. The 28.26% maximum drawdown is higher than Account 1’s 25.47% despite a much shorter track record — suggesting this account uses more aggressive lot sizing. FBS is not among the tier-1 ECN brokers. The 7-month track record is insufficient to confirm whether this performance survives different market regimes. The account’s aggressive withdrawal strategy also means it has not been tested under compounding conditions.
Account 4 — BEEFOREXEA: The Demo Account
Verification: Demo (USD) | JustMarkets | MT5 | Track Record ✅ | Trading Privileges ✅
Key numbers: +95.51% | 11.98% monthly | 2.79% max drawdown | $1,000 deposit | No withdrawals | Started October 2025
The 2.79% maximum drawdown figure looks exceptional. It is almost certainly an artifact of demo account conditions: no real slippage, no real spread widening during news events, no real margin call risk, and no swap costs over time. Demo accounts systematically understate the drawdown traders will experience on live accounts with real execution.
This account illustrates why the first verification check in any Myfxbook analysis is account type. The performance numbers here — 11.98% monthly with 2.79% drawdown — would be extraordinary on a live account. They are not surprising on a demo account with controlled conditions. Compare this to Account 1’s real account showing 13.11% monthly with 25.47% drawdown — a far more realistic picture of what this EA does to live capital.
Who this is useful for: If you want to test Quantum Queen’s signal logic and understand its trading pattern before committing real capital, a demo account like this provides that function. It cannot predict real account performance, but it demonstrates the EA is capable of generating consistent entry signals over extended periods.
What Separates the Profitable Accounts from the Blown One
Four accounts running the same EA produce four completely different outcomes. The variable is not the EA — it is the configuration. Based on the available Myfxbook data, three factors stand out:
1. Broker and Execution Quality
Account 2 (blown) ran on XM. Account 1 (2-year success) and Account 3 (aggressive profits) run on different MT5 brokers. Quantum Queen appears to be a scalping or semi-scalping system — execution quality, spread, and slippage directly affect whether entries and exits happen at the prices the algorithm expects. XM is a market maker broker known for higher spreads compared to ECN alternatives. A scalping EA designed for tight ECN conditions may behave catastrophically on a wider-spread market maker account.
2. Lot Sizing and Risk Configuration
Account 2 deposited $10,000 and was wiped in 12 days — a loss rate of approximately $833 per day. This is only possible if lot sizes were configured aggressively relative to account size. The same EA running conservative lot sizes on Account 1 generated a 25% maximum drawdown over 2 years, not 97% in 12 days. The vendor’s default settings may not be safe for all account sizes — always calculate correct lot size using the position size calculator before configuring any EA’s inputs.
3. Market Conditions During Entry
Account 2 started on October 4, 2025 and was wiped by October 16. October 2025 saw significant USD movement driven by US economic data and Fed commentary. A system with position-averaging or grid elements entering during a sustained directional move in unfavourable conditions will accumulate open losses faster than the account can support. Timing of initial deployment relative to market conditions matters — particularly for EAs without news filters.
What Concerns Me About Quantum Queen
Beyond the blown account, several patterns in the aggregate data raise questions worth raising before any purchase decision:
- No official vendor Myfxbook account linked. The accounts analysed here are user-submitted third-party accounts, not vendor-operated accounts. The vendor does not appear to maintain a publicly accessible verified Myfxbook account with a continuous multi-year track record. This is a meaningful transparency gap — the best non-martingale EAs (FXStabilizer, SCR-EURAUD, Forex Robotron) all maintain vendor-operated verified accounts.
- Outcome variance is too wide for a “consistent” system. An EA where one setup generates +2,093% and another generates -97% is not behaving consistently. This variance suggests the EA’s edge is highly parameter-sensitive. A well-designed low-risk EA should produce similar drawdown characteristics across different user accounts running similar risk settings — Quantum Queen clearly does not.
- The blown account suggests potential grid/averaging exposure. The speed and direction of the Account 2 loss (97% in 12 days, no recovery bounce) is consistent with a position-averaging or grid system caught in a trend. Pure scalping EAs with hard stop losses do not blow accounts this way — they lose individual trades, not entire accounts in directional moves. The equity curve shape confirms this pattern.
- Live Update not active on the best account. Account 1 (bogdanion) has Live Update badge as grey/inactive. For a subscription-based EA, this means the vendor’s primary showcased account does not continuously sync with live data — an unusual gap for an EA being actively sold.
Who This EA Suits — and Who It Doesn’t
| Trader Profile | Suitable? | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Experienced trader, ECN broker, small lot (0.01–0.05), starting with demo | ✅ Potentially | The 2-year real account shows a genuine edge exists under controlled conditions |
| Beginner with $10,000 on a standard account broker | ❌ No | Account 2 profile — high capital, market maker broker = the exact conditions that caused a 12-day blow-up |
| Conservative trader wanting consistent 2–5% monthly | ❌ No | Monthly variance is too high and outcome too broker/setting-dependent for conservative capital allocation |
| Trader who wants to test strategy logic before committing capital | ⚠️ Demo first | Demo account (Account 4) shows consistent signals — valid for testing, not for performance prediction |
| Trader on ECN with $1,000–$3,000, 0.01 lot start | ⚠️ Possible | Minimum viable approach — gives the EA room to operate without the lot-size-driven catastrophic drawdown seen in Account 2 |
Verdict
Quantum Queen EA has a demonstrable edge — Account 1’s 2-year real track record with verified withdrawals and Account 3’s profitable 7-month run confirm this. The EA is not a scam, and the underlying strategy appears functional under the right conditions.
But “under the right conditions” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The blown Account 2 — same EA, different setup, $10,000 lost in 12 days — is a concrete data point that cannot be dismissed as an outlier. It reflects a real failure mode that traders need to understand before deployment.
The verdict is not “buy” or “avoid.” It is: if you run Quantum Queen, the setup matters more than the EA itself. ECN broker with tight spreads. Conservative initial lot size at 0.01–0.05. Minimum 2–4 weeks on demo with the same broker you plan to go live on. Starting balance sized to absorb at least 30% drawdown without hitting margin call — which means $1,500–$3,000 minimum for a 0.01 lot start.
For traders looking for verified EAs with more predictable outcome variance across different user accounts, the consistent monthly profits EA comparison covers systems where the gap between best-case and worst-case outcomes is significantly narrower.
For gold (XAUUSD) EA alternatives with verified live data, the best gold forex robot guide includes verified Myfxbook analysis of gold-specific systems.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Quantum Queen EA profitable?
Based on verified Myfxbook data across multiple real accounts, Quantum Queen EA can be profitable — but outcomes vary dramatically by setup. The best-performing real account (bogdanion) shows +2,093% gain over 2 years with $9,625 in verified withdrawals from $7,210 in deposits — confirmed net profit. A second real account was completely blown in 12 days with -97% loss on $10,000. The difference lies in broker selection, lot sizing, and risk configuration — not the EA itself.
What broker should I use for Quantum Queen EA?
Based on Myfxbook data, avoid market maker brokers with high spreads — the blown account ran on XM. Quantum Queen appears to be a scalping or semi-scalping system that requires tight execution conditions. ECN or Raw Spread accounts with consistently low spreads are recommended. Test on a demo account with your intended live broker before committing real capital — spread and execution conditions vary significantly between brokers and will affect EA performance.
What is Quantum Queen EA’s maximum drawdown?
Drawdown varies significantly by setup. The 2-year real account (Account 1) shows 25.47% maximum drawdown. The demo account shows 2.79% — not representative of live conditions. The blown account reached 97.06% before liquidation. For planning purposes, size your account to survive at least 30% drawdown on a conservatively configured real account. Use the position size calculator to determine the correct lot size for your account balance before starting.
Does Quantum Queen EA use martingale?
Based on equity curve analysis, Quantum Queen does not show the classic doubling martingale signature on successful accounts — the equity curves are jagged rather than artificially smooth. However, the catastrophic 12-day blow-up pattern on Account 2 (97% loss, no recovery bounce, sustained directional decline) is consistent with a grid or position-averaging system caught in an unfavourable trend. Pure scalping EAs with hard stop losses do not produce this loss pattern. The exact strategy logic is not publicly disclosed by the vendor.
Work my fulltime job as the developer and writer for Oreshnikbot.com now. Have been working on forex and forex EAs for 10 years.