Stochastic Cross vs MACD, RSI and EMA Crossovers: All Four Lost, and a 200 EMA Filter Helped Only the Stochastic

Stochastic, MACD, RSI and moving averages all give crossover signals, and most traders pick one by habit. I wanted to know whether the choice matters when every signal is traded exactly the same way. My earlier tests looked at each one alone: the MACD crossover, the moving average crossover and the Stochastic %K/%D cross. This one puts them next to each other.

The short answer: all four lost. The differences between them were real but small, and the most useful one came from a filter, not from the indicator.

How were the four crossovers compared?

• Data: 16,925 EURUSD M5 bars, June 3 to August 26, 2026, split at July 15 into two halves.
• Stochastic 14/3/3: %K crosses %D. Also tested with the 20/80 zone filter, buys below 20 and sells above 80.
• MACD 12/26/9: the MACD line crosses its signal line.
• RSI 14: RSI crosses 50, up = buy, down = sell.
• EMA 9/21: the fast average crosses the slow one.
• Same rules for all: signal on the closed bar, entry at the next bar’s open, exit after 30 minutes, 1 hour, or at the next opposite signal. 1 pip of cost, from my spread and swap test.
• Trend filter: the same signals, taken only on the side of the 200 EMA (buys above it, sells below it).

Which crossover lost the least?

Pips per trade, EURUSD M5. “Signals” counts every cross; “trades” is lower because only one trade was open at a time.

Four of the five rows are within 0.2 pips of zero before costs. That is no edge, just the spread. The EMA 9/21 cross stands out for the wrong reason: it lost almost half a pip per trade before costs. A moving average cross comes after the move has started, and on M5 the move is often finished by then. The two were compared head to head on the same bars in my MACD vs moving average test.

Does a longer hold change the order?

At one hour, MACD edged ahead of the Stochastic zone cross. The first half of the data made MACD look much better (-0.55) than the second half did (-1.15), so I would not read a ranking into 0.26 pips. What held in every column: the EMA cross was last, and “hold until the opposite signal” was the worst exit for every indicator. The RSI 50 cross won only 16.5% of those trades. Signals that flip back and forth quickly punish anyone who waits for them.

Does a 200 EMA trend filter help?

It depends on the indicator, and the reason is worth understanding:

Pips per trade after 1 pip of cost. At a one-hour hold the filter pushed MACD further, to -1.52.

A Stochastic zone buy with price above the 200 EMA is a pullback in an uptrend: price dipped, the oscillator went under 20 and turned up. That is a buy-the-dip entry, and the filter keeps only the dips that happen in the right direction. A MACD buy above the 200 EMA is the opposite. Price has already risen, and the filter adds a second “it has already gone up” condition. The filter helps oscillators that measure pullbacks and hurts indicators that measure momentum.

The filtered Stochastic zone cross was the best result in this test, and it still lost 0.61 pips per trade, -0.87 in the first half and -0.36 in the second. Better is not the same as profitable. The same filter did more for Stochastic in my overbought/oversold test, where it was traded as a fade rather than a cross.

Do Stochastic and MACD crosses agree?

Rarely. Of the 4,263 Stochastic crosses, only 27.8% had a MACD cross in the same direction within 3 bars either side. Stochastic reacts to where the close sits in the last 14 bars. MACD reacts to the gap between two averages. They cross for different reasons, and most of the time one of them is crossing alone.

So using one to confirm the other cuts the number of trades hard. I checked a softer version, Stochastic crosses in the direction of the EMA 9/21 trend:

Agreement was worth about a quarter of a pip. That is the usual size of a “confirmation” in my tests, and it is the same result as in indicator combinations tested. A second indicator trims the loss and does not turn it into a profit.

Which crossover should you use?

• On EURUSD M5, none of them as a stand-alone entry. Every signal, filter and exit I tried lost after a 1-pip cost.
• If you want one, use the Stochastic zone cross with a 200 EMA filter. It was the least bad, -0.61 pips per trade, and it was built for pullbacks, which is what a 5-minute chart mostly offers.
• Do not add a trend filter to MACD or a moving average cross. It made both worse.
• Drop the EMA 9/21 cross on M5. It was the only one clearly negative before costs.
• Move up a timeframe before swapping indicators. The Stochastic cross on H1 behaved very differently. The details are in my Stochastic crossover settings for MT4 guide.

Frequently asked questions

Is Stochastic better than MACD for crossover signals?

Slightly, on EURUSD M5 over 30 minutes. Stochastic crosses in the 20/80 zones lost 0.84 pips per trade after costs, MACD signal crosses lost 0.95. At a one-hour hold MACD was slightly better, -0.87 against -1.13. Neither made money.

Do Stochastic and MACD give the same signals?

No. Only 27.8% of Stochastic %K/%D crosses had a MACD signal-line cross in the same direction within 3 bars.

Should I use a 200 EMA filter with Stochastic?

It helped. Stochastic zone crosses taken only on the side of the 200 EMA lost 0.61 pips per trade instead of 0.84. The same filter made MACD crosses worse, -1.14 instead of -0.95.

Which crossover is worst on the 5-minute chart?

The EMA 9/21 cross. It lost 0.46 pips per trade before costs and 1.46 after, the worst of the four at every holding time.

Is the RSI 50 cross a good signal?

Not on M5. It lost 1.05 pips per trade over 30 minutes, and held until the next opposite cross it won only 16.5% of trades.