There are two common ways to size a futures strategy. Trade the same number of contracts every time, or risk the same amount of money every time and let the number of contracts follow the stop. People argue about which is better. We ran both on the same trades to see what actually changes.
The short answer: sizing doesn't change a single trade. Every entry, stop and target is identical either way. What sizing changes is which trades carry the weight, and that can move the results a long way.
The two methods
Fixed contracts. Say 2 contracts on every trade. The stop decides how much you lose: a 10-point stop risks half as much as a 20-point stop.
Fixed dollar risk. You pick an amount to risk per trade, your 1R. The number of contracts is 1R divided by what one contract loses at the stop, rounded down. A wide stop gets fewer contracts and a tight stop gets more, so every loss at the stop is about the same size.
If one contract at the stop would lose more than your 1R, the rounding gives zero contracts and the trade is skipped. Keep that in mind; it comes back in the checks below.
What we compared
We took the published backtests of the two strategies we offer and sized every trade both ways, using the same logic as the calculator on our strategy pages. That's 203 trades for ICT22 Model on Micro Nasdaq and 364 for Midas Model on Micro Gold, about three years to 1 October 2026, after commission and slippage, with a cap of 10 contracts.
For a fair race, we matched the size: the dollar-risk version trades about the same total number of contracts as the fixed version (we checked averages of 2, 3 and 5 contracts). Then we compared the net result and the deepest drawdown, as ratios, so the comparison doesn't depend on account size. At the smaller sizes, the dollar-risk version of Midas Model skipped a few of its widest-stop trades (up to 20 of 364), the effect described in the first check below.
ICT22 Model: losses evened out
With 1 contract on every trade, ICT22 Model's widest stop risked 5 times as much as its narrowest. Sized by dollar risk at a 1R of $200, that spread dropped to about 1.5 times (it can't reach exactly 1 because contracts come in whole numbers), and the worst loss went from about 2.2 times the typical loss to about 1.15 times.
Over the full three years, dollar risk gave about 10% less net for under half the deepest drawdown: 0.86 to 0.91 times the net and 0.44 to 0.48 times the drawdown. Net per unit of drawdown was about 8 to 9, against about 4.5 for fixed contracts.
That isn't true in every stretch. Split the backtest in half by date. In the first half, dollar risk made slightly more net and had a slightly deeper drawdown, 5 to 19% deeper. The whole gap, in net and in drawdown, comes from the second half. One record, one path.
Midas Model: the risk per trade drifted
Midas Model went the other way, and 2026 produced most of the backtest profit. Over the full backtest, dollar risk gave 0.53 to 0.60 times the net, and net per unit of drawdown fell from about 5.3 to about 3.3 to 3.6.
The reason is the market. Over these three years the price of gold more than doubled, and Midas Model's stops widened with it: the typical stop was about 5.7 points in late 2023 and about 16 points in 2026. With fixed contracts, the same 1 contract was quietly risking about three times as much per trade by 2026.
2026 was also Midas Model's best year: 2026 produced most of the backtest profit, about 70% of its total R, and at a fixed 1 contract about 87% of the profit. So fixed contracts happened to be risking the most in the year the trades did best. Dollar risk kept every trade close to the same 1R, so it didn't get that boost.
Split by year and it reverses. From 2023 to 2025, dollar risk did better: net per unit of drawdown of about 2.2 to 2.4, against about 1.6 for fixed contracts. In 2026 alone, fixed contracts did better: about 4.6, against about 2.3 to 2.6. Where you cut the record changes the answer, which is a reason not to treat either number as a law.
CFTC Rule 4.41 statement. These results are based on simulated or hypothetical performance results that have certain inherent limitations. Unlike the results shown in an actual performance record, these results do not represent actual trading. Also, because these trades have not actually been executed, these results may have under-or over-compensated for the impact, if any, of certain market factors, such as lack of liquidity. Simulated or hypothetical trading programs in general are also subject to the fact that they are designed with the benefit of hindsight. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to these being shown.
The lesson: with fixed contracts, your risk per trade isn't fixed
Fixed contracts feel like the simple, constant choice. They aren't constant. Your risk per trade moves with the stop, and on a market whose volatility trends, it drifts. A backtest's best stretch can turn out to be the stretch where you were risking several times what you were at the start.
Fixed dollar risk shows you the result per unit of risk with nothing added. Fixed contracts add a bet on volatility on top, and that bet can help or hurt. Neither is right for everyone. What matters is knowing which one a backtest used, so you know which result you're looking at.
Two checks on any dollar-risk backtest
- Does the 1R cover the widest stop at 1 contract? If not, those trades round to zero and are skipped, and they are always the widest-stop trades. On Micro Gold, Midas Model's widest stop was about 77 points, roughly $770 for one contract. At a 1R of $200, 62 of its 364 backtest trades would have been skipped; at $100, 297. A dollar-risk backtest with a small 1R can be a different set of trades.
- Does the contract cap quietly undo it? Dollar risk only works if the size is free to vary. If the 1R is large next to the cap, most trades hit the cap and you are back to fixed contracts. On ICT22 Model with a 1R of $1,000 and a cap of 10, every trade sat at the cap.
What this can't tell you
These are two records, not a rule. Each strategy has one backtest, and a deepest drawdown is a single path: the worst run in the past isn't a ceiling on the next one. The ratios also move with the cap and with rounding at small sizes. Past and simulated results don't predict future results.
Try it on our pages
The calculator on the ICT22 Model page switches between fixed contracts and fixed dollar risk, using the same trades. Midas Model was built and backtested on fixed contracts, so its page sizes that way. Both strategies have been forward-tracked since 1 October 2026, and each trade is added to the forward record as it closes, losing trades included.
Not advice. Futures trading carries substantial risk of loss.