Methodology · Portugal Funds research

Reading the decisions behind the scores.

What Stock Picking and Downside Protection measure, why 50 is neutral and how to interpret experimental historical results.

Two questions about historical decisions.

Stock Picking assesses whether inferred funded-security decisions improved subsequent returns, including the cash used or released. Downside Protection assesses whether inferred decisions reduced subsequent peak-to-trough losses.

Understand the neutral point.

The score is 100 × favourable effects ÷ total absolute effects. At 50, measured benefits equal measured harms. Above 50, benefits outweigh harms in the measured sample. The score is not a probability, win rate, peer ranking or regulatory risk rating.

Read the method before the number.

Published examples use a five-year history and three-month outcomes. Inferred decisions depend on monthly holdings, tests overlap, trading costs are not deducted and futures effects use a PSI proxy. These are experimental historical assessments, not forecasts.

Read the full score methodology.

Sources and coverage

Source: the existing Fundraxis public snapshot, collected on 27 Oct 2026. This local website uses the published test-data sample; it has not been validated as a production release. Source facts, reporting dates, coverage and analytical outputs should be assessed together.

Read our methodology or request a factual correction.

Proprietary research models Experimental

Understand the decisions.
Explain the outcomes.

Two historical measures of portfolio decisions: did changes help subsequent returns, and did they reduce subsequent drawdowns?

Understand our manager scores

Published sample · Fund 01

Stock picking

Subsequent return effects

49/100

Downside protection

Subsequent drawdown effects

42/100
050 · neutral100

Assessment: 2026-09-30. Five-year history; three-month outcomes. Scores are historical assessments, not probabilities, peer rankings or regulatory risk ratings.

Continue your research.