The MQL5 Trap: Is the Trading Standard Rigged Against You?

Note: This is an editorial / consumer-protection piece based on public rules and widely reported user experiences. Always verify terms yourself before sending money to any marketplace or escrow service.

I. Introduction: The Inertia of a Monopolist

I have used the MetaTrader/MQL5 ecosystem for 15 years. As a veteran developer on the platform, I believed I owed something back to the community that helped build my career. So, I returned with the intent to give away helpful trading tools for free, a small token of gratitude. Instead, I was silenced. My contribution was stifled by the very platform I'd supported for over a decade.

Why? Because MetaQuotes, the company behind MetaTrader 4/5 and the MQL5.com community, has grown complacent and abusive in its monopoly. They rely on being the "industry standard" to trap users in a walled garden. In this closed ecosystem, developers are taxed for failure, consumers are enticed by fake reviews and curve-fitted products, and any dissent is algorithmically censored. All of this is by design, protected by obscure rules and automated moderation.

This article is not just a review; it is a consumer protection warning. If you are a trader or developer in 2026 still using MQL5.com as your go-to platform, you deserve to know how it actively works against your interests. MetaQuotes' dominance comes from inertia, not quality, we're essentially stuck with 2005-era technology (MT4 launched in 2005, MT5 in 2010[1]) that the industry clings to out of habit. It's time to pull back the curtain on why that inertia is being cynically exploited to the detriment of the trading community.

II. The Freelance Trap: How MQL5 Monetizes Failure

One of the most egregious examples of MetaQuotes' exploitative practices lies in their Freelance service on MQL5.com, essentially an internal job marketplace for coding projects. Buried in the Terms of Service is a "10% rule" that financially penalizes customers when a project fails. It's a built-in monetization of failure that reputable freelance platforms would never consider.

The 10% "Smoking Gun": According to Section V of the official Freelance Rules, if a hired developer fails to deliver and the project is cancelled in arbitration "in favor of the Customer," MQL5 still takes a 10% commission out of the escrowed funds[2]. In plain language: you post a $1,000 job, the developer delivers nothing, and you rightly demand your money back, MQL5 will only refund $900. They pocket $100 purely because the project failed. This isn't a negotiable penalty or a mutual fee, it's an automatic rake of 10% on failed jobs. No work delivered, yet MetaQuotes profits.

Predatory Incentives: This model is unheard of on legitimate freelance platforms. Neither Upwork nor Fiverr charges the client a fee when a project fails due to a freelancer's incompetence. Typically, those platforms refund the client in full (they make money only when work is successfully delivered). MQL5's policy, however, incentivizes the marketplace to tolerate (or even quietly encourage) unqualified developers. From MetaQuotes' perspective, failed jobs are profitable. Whether a project succeeds or crashes and burns, they take a cut either way, a stark conflict of interest. As one frustrated user observed after hiring three different MQL5 developers who never delivered: "Once you deposit money, you have to spend it — regardless of the outcome." He was told outright that "money is not refundable", and ended up losing $280 with nothing to show for it[3].

The "Split Decision" Cop-Out: It gets worse. Because MQL5 collects their 10% commission regardless of the outcome, they have zero financial incentive to actually investigate a dispute. A thorough code review takes time and expertise; declaring a "split decision" takes seconds. Consequently, arbitration often defaults to a lazy middle ground where the moderator rules that "both parties are at fault." In this scenario, you lose 50% of your budget, the developer gets 40% for failing, and MQL5 still pockets their 10% cut[4]. Imagine paying half the project fee for completely broken code, while the developer walks away with cash in hand, effectively subsidized by your deposit. The system is rigged not because MQL5 makes more money from this outcome, but because they make the same money without doing any of the work required to ensure fairness.

Consider the perverse incentive this creates: MQL5 wins even when you lose. A marketplace that profits from bad outcomes will naturally be less motivated to vet developers or enforce quality, after all, incompetence pads their bottom line. No wonder some users describe the freelance section as a "scam" where the house always wins. The official rules openly confirm this practice, stating that even if the job is canceled entirely in the customer's favor, "10% ... is deducted from the Customer's account" as a commission[5]. In any scenario, MetaQuotes gets its pound of flesh.

III. The Market Minefield: An Ecosystem of "Curve-Fitted" Lies

If the freelance section taxes your failure, the Market section (where indicators and trading robots are sold) goes for something arguably worse: it poisons your chances of success from the start. The Market is flooded with products that look incredible on paper, but are effectively engineered to fail traders in real life, and the platform's structure helps enable it.

The Perfect Backtest Deception: Anyone browsing MQL5's Market will recognize the pattern, Expert Advisors (trading bots) boasting 99% win rates or sky-high returns in historical tests. This isn't because someone cracked the code to infinite riches; it's usually curve-fitting. Developers can optimize an EA to perform brilliantly on past data (passing the strategy tester's checks) while having zero edge in live markets. MQL5 does nothing to require forward performance proof. Unlike more transparent ecosystems (e.g. Myfxbook or third-party verifications), MQL5's only vetting is a technical run to ensure the program runs and doesn't blatantly break rules. They even state in their rules that the Administration provides only a "formal test of the Product, checking its conformity with the functionality stated by the Seller," and explicitly "does not guarantee the profitability" of any trading robot[6]. In practice, this means a seller can optimize a strategy to fit historical data, pass MQL5's cursory checks, and list it for sale, no requirement to show a live track record or any proof that the strategy works beyond cherry-picked backtests.

Fake Reviews and the Hype Machine: Once these curve-fitted EAs hit the Market, the next phase of the con is manufactured credibility. It is disturbingly common to see a brand-new EA get five or ten five-star reviews within days of launch, often from accounts with no history or that oddly all comment in a generic, overly positive tone. Long-time community members have flagged this "review farm" phenomenon for years. "I noticed a lot of EAs on the front page that all have the same thing in common: fake reviews," one user reported, explaining that some developers bribe buyers for 5-star ratings or coordinate with friends[7]. In one case, a buyer asked for a refund on a dud product and the seller responded: "Yes, you can get a refund, if you leave us a 5-star review first."[8] Such tactics are blatantly fraudulent, yet persist in the MQL5 market. More than 50% of products on the site likely contain fake positive reviews, according to one estimate by an honest seller, who pleaded, "Why does MQL5 not employ a stronger mechanism to catch these fake reviews?"[9]. The unfortunate answer: because those fake reviews drive sales, and sales generate commissions for MetaQuotes.

Bait-and-Switch Updates: Even when a product starts off legitimate, you're not safe. A common scheme involves a seller initially releasing a decent version of their software, enough to garner good reviews and ratings, then later pushing an "update" that cripples the product or removes features, effectively forcing users to buy a new "Pro" version or another product to regain functionality. One Trustpilot reviewer recounts how they purchased a trading bot that seemed fine until an advertised bonus/update was suddenly removed by the developer, drastically changing the tool's functionality. "After this, the product no longer matched what was initially presented," the trader wrote. Support refused a refund, leaving the customer out $200[10]. This bait-and-switch tactic is essentially a cash grab: by the time the update sabotage happens, the seller has your money and possibly a bunch of 5-star reviews locked in from the earlier version. If you complain, you might find your honest review never sees the light of day (more on the censorship machine in the next section).

The Disappearing Act: There's also the classic routine observed in the Market: develop, dump, and vanish. Sellers will launch a hyped EA, often remove it from the Market after a month or two once negative feedback mounts, then reappear under a new product name. "Sellers start a good month of sales with fake reviews, then 1-2 months later remove the EA from market... then release another one," one community member explained, calling it a routine for certain scam sellers[11]. Because MQL5 allows sellers to delete products at will, unsuspecting buyers can't even see the full history of a vendor's flops. (Users have suggested that if an EA was ever sold, it should remain visible even if discontinued, so the seller's track record, good or bad, is public[12][13].) But currently, a seller can wipe away the evidence of a scam EA and start anew. MQL5's lax policy essentially aids in erasing scam footprints. Combined with fake reviews, this means a seller can cycle through misleading products and keep victimizing new traders repeatedly.

In short, the Market section of MQL5 is a minefield for consumers. The appearance of credibility, polished backtests, dozens of 5-star ratings, is often a mirage engineered by unscrupulous sellers. And the platform's rules and oversight (or lack thereof) not only allow this, but arguably encourage it. MetaQuotes collects a commission on each sale, real or fake, and an activation fee on each product, they profit while the buyer is left holding the bag. As one Forex Factory user bluntly put it: "The site has lost all legitimacy... The reviews of the EAs are fake and they will tend to remove negative feedback... They are literally milking newcomers who think those EAs are good when in reality it's the opposite."[14].

IV. The Echo Chamber: Censorship as a Business Model

So what happens when experienced users try to warn others about these issues? What if you call out a scam or leave a detailed negative review? On MQL5, be prepared for your voice to be silenced. The platform has created an echo chamber where only the rosy, revenue-generating narratives survive, and any whistleblowing is swiftly purged under the guise of "moderation."

Automated Silencing of Reviews: Earlier, I mentioned how my attempt to give a free tools to the community was stifled. Here's what happened: Users who tried my free indicator left detailed, positive feedback, genuine reviews noting its value. Those reviews never appeared publicly. Why? An "automated system" flagged and hid them. MQL5's administrators admitted in mid-2020 that they introduced an algorithm which "hides reviews from accounts that [it] found suspicious." They deliberately refuse to disclose how it works[15]. Ostensibly this is to combat fake reviews, an ironic twist, given how rampant fake positive reviews are allowed to flourish. In practice, this opaque filter often snags legitimate comments. In my case, it targeted praise for a free product. Why would real user reviews be flagged as suspicious? One can't help but suspect the system is quick to smother anything that doesn't fit the commercial agenda. Free tools that might reduce the appeal of paid products, or detailed critiques that draw too much attention, seem to get caught in the algorithm's net, while one-line "Great product!" spam for top-sellers sail through. As I wrote elsewhere, "the MQL5 system flagged [my users' reviews] as 'suspicious' and hid them. Meanwhile, the Market top sellers are flooded with hundreds of one-word, 5-star reviews ... and MQL5 allows this to continue."[16] It's a double standard that benefits the cash cows and mutes the community's genuine voices.

Forum "Ban Hammer" and Post Deletions: When I noticed this unfair suppression, I did what any concerned member would do, I raised the issue on the official forum. I wanted to warn others and spark an honest discussion about fake reviews and manipulation. My post was deleted within minutes. The moderators labeled it "Conspiracy Theories" and erased it[17]. This is not an isolated incident; it's effectively policy. Threads that question scammy sellers, discuss flaws in MetaQuotes' systems, or air dirty laundry have a way of disappearing quickly on MQL5.com. Officially, the excuse is that such posts violate forum rules (harassment, defamation, or the catch-all "spam"). In reality, it appears to be corporate damage control. By wiping any public allegations of fraud or malpractice, MetaQuotes protects the reputation of its marketplace (and thus its revenue). Multiple users have reported similar experiences. One Trustpilot reviewer from August 2025 noted: "After reporting a seller who pays for reviews, the platform deleted my account without any explanation. I tried to get in touch, but there is no way to reach any human support."[18]. That's right, this person says MQL5 banned their account entirely for flagging a fraudulent review scheme. Another user on an external forum recounted that merely arguing with a moderator got him a 10-year ban and his funds effectively confiscated[19]. The message is clear: speak out against the ecosystem's abuses, and you'll be cast out of it.

Protecting the Cash Flow, Not the Users: The net effect of these policies is an echo chamber where only positive narratives (or innocuous chatter) remain visible. If you search the MQL5 forums, you might wonder why there are hardly any threads naming scam products or warning others, it's not because they don't exist, it's because they are swiftly pruned. Meanwhile, scam sellers who generate lots of sales (and thus commissions for MetaQuotes) are allowed to continue operating until perhaps too many complaints accumulate off-site. It's telling that MQL5's moderation seems far more zealous in shutting down accusations of scams than in shutting down the scams themselves. Dissent is bad for business. As a result, many newcomers never see the warnings that could have saved them money. They see a wall of 5-star reviews and no negative discussion, a falsely sanitized landscape that preys on their trust.

Support is a Ghost: If you do get burned and seek help through official channels, good luck. MQL5's customer support is infamously unresponsive and robotic. There's essentially no human recourse. Users often report getting copy & paste replies or no reply at all from the Service Desk. The Trustpilot reviews page for MQL5 is littered with stories of people who tried to resolve issues, be it unfair arbitration fees, non-working products, or account problems, only to receive silence or irrelevant canned responses. "No support or check of its products whatsoever," one reviewer wrote, emphasizing that anyone can sell a scam on the site with impunity[20]. When I had my own issues (like the hidden reviews), the "official" answer was to blame an algorithm and shrug. The lack of a real, accountable support team means MetaQuotes is essentially unaccountable to its users. If your money is stuck, if your purchased EA is a dud, or if you've been banned unjustly, there's no ombudsman or effective appeal. In a community-run forum a mod might at least hear you out; in the company-run MQL5 world, the company is judge, jury, and executioner, and it doesn't even want to hear the case.

In summary, MQL5.com operates on a kind of soft censorship that serves its financial motives. Honest criticism is filtered out under opaque "algorithms" or forum rules, leaving behind a skewed perception that everything is generally fine (when it isn't). This business model of silence protects scammers (who pay MetaQuotes fees) and stifles those who call them out. It's not just poor customer service; it's an intentional strategy to maintain a profitable illusion.

V. The Exit Strategy: It Is Time to Move On

Reading this, you might feel outraged or discouraged. But you are not helpless. The best way to push back against a monopolist abusing its power is to vote with your feet (and your wallet). The good news is that viable alternatives have matured significantly in recent years, for both traders and developers. Here's how we, as a community, can break out of the MQL5 trap:

Better Trading Platforms (No More MT4/MT5 Inertia):

TradingView (for Manual/Social Traders): If you primarily trade manually and value charts and community, TradingView is a breath of fresh air. It offers modern, web-based charts (far superior to MetaTrader's dated interface) and a massive social network of traders sharing ideas openly. The platform boasts over 100 million users globally, all interacting on charts, scripts, and trade ideas[21]. TradingView's Pine Script fosters an ecosystem of transparency rather than secrecy. Most community scripts are open for review, allowing you to verify exactly how an indicator works instead of blindly trusting a 'black box' sold behind a paywall. No more black-box EAs with fake results; on TradingView, strategies are often shared along with open source code and community discussion. It's not oriented around selling you something, it's about sharing and learning. If you need an algorithmic execution bridge, there are integrations to route TradingView alerts to brokers, but for charting and strategizing, it's become the gold standard. Bottom line: you get cutting-edge chart tech and a real community, without the vendor-driven scams.

cTrader (for Algorithmic/ECN Traders): For those who want to stick with algorithmic trading and need a robust platform connected to brokers, cTrader is a strong alternative. Many ECN brokers offer cTrader alongside (or instead of) MetaTrader now. Unlike MT4/5, which run on a dealer model (with potential broker interference), cTrader was built with transparency in mind. It operates a true no-dealing-desk execution policy, no re-quotes, no artificial delays. In fact, cTrader prides itself on "no dealer intervention, ensuring a fair trading environment."[22] It provides features like Level II market depth, detailed trade analytics, and uses the widely-adopted C# language for algorithmic coding (via cTrader Automate/CAlgo)[23]. C# is a standard programming language, meaning developers aren't locked into a MetaQuotes-proprietary language, your skills are transferable. If you're coming from MT4/5, there will be a learning curve, but cTrader's API and community are growing. Importantly, cTrader doesn't have a central marketplace pushing curve-fitted bots on you. There are third-party cTrader cBots, yes, but the ecosystem isn't dominated by them. The focus is on providing a professional trading experience akin to what institutional traders use. In short, you trade on a platform that is aligned with your success (brokers earn from volume, not your losses or gadget sales), and you code in a professional language with standard tools.

NinjaTrader (for Advanced/Professional Traders, especially Futures): If you trade futures or demand the highest fidelity in backtesting and execution, NinjaTrader is a platform worth considering. It's been an industry staple for professional and semi-professional traders. NinjaTrader's backtesting engine is powerful and, crucially, transparent and configurable. Traders can simulate different order fill assumptions and use high-quality tick data to avoid the false confidence of naive backtests. (The platform even documents how it uses advanced historical fill processing for realistic backtest results[24].) With NinjaTrader, you also own your data and setups, you're not tied into a web of activation licenses per computer like MQL5's Market enforces. The platform and its ecosystem (including third-party add-ons and a coding framework in C#) are geared toward serious strategy development with verification. It's not free, NinjaTrader has licensing costs, but consider what you might save by avoiding just one junk EA purchase or arbitration fee on MQL5. For those trading large volumes or needing broker independence, NinjaTrader can connect to various brokerage feeds (not just a single broker). Many verified, third-party trading educators and system developers use NinjaTrader to publish strategies, often with track records. If nothing else, its presence as an alternative pressures MetaTrader to modernize (something that hasn't meaningfully happened in a decade).

Reclaiming the Community and Marketplace:

Hire Developers on Real Freelance Platforms: If you need a custom indicator or robot coded, you do not have to use MQL5's built-in freelance service and subject yourself to its rigged economics. Instead, find and hire developers through platforms like Upwork or Freelancer. On these sites, you have standard escrow protection (when a job fails, you get your money back minus perhaps a small payment processing fee, no one is taking 10% of your deposit as profit). You can interview coders, check their work history, and even arrange milestones. Yes, you'll need to manage the project more directly, but you'll avoid the conflict of interest that MetaQuotes has as both platform and profiteer. Additionally, many talented MT4/MT5 coders hang out in independent forums, GitHub, or specialized Discord communities. Engage with them; often, they're happy to work on projects via safer payment arrangements. At least you can negotiate terms and arbitration outside the one-sided MQL5 rules. Never again accept that you must pay a platform a commission for a developer's failure. There are plenty of alternatives where escrow means escrow.

Verify Before You Trust, Use Independent Performance Tracking: One simple rule if you're thinking of buying any trading system: don't trust screenshots or backtests on a sales page. Demand verified proof. Websites like MyFxBook, FX Blue, or MQL5's own Signals service (in read-only form) can show live trading results that are hard to fake. If a seller cannot provide a live forward test of their EA (or at least a lengthy demo forward test on a third-party tracking site), consider that a huge red flag. The reputable sellers will be those who link to a MyFxBook account showing months or years of real performance, and even then, scrutinize it. If more buyers insist on this, sellers will have to up their game or get out. MQL5 doesn't require it, but you, as a consumer, can require it of yourself. There are also signal-copy services like SignalStart or Collective2 where strategies can be tracked in real-time. Use these tools to differentiate between hyped illusions and actual edge. And remember: if something only has dazzling backtests and a handful of short-term reviews, you are likely looking at a statistical fluke or a marketing gimmick.

Join Uncensored Communities: One of MetaQuotes' strengths is that its official forum is huge. But as we've seen, it's heavily moderated for PR purposes. To get the real story, consider spending time in communities that MetaQuotes doesn't control. Forex Factory's forums, Reddit's r/Forex or r/algotrading, and independent Discord groups can be invaluable. You'll often find frank discussions of which EAs are scammy, which developers are con artists, and which ones are worth a look. These communities also surface new platforms and tools faster. By broadening your circle, you won't be limited to the echo chamber of MQL5's site. You'll hear from others who have faced similar problems and learn how they overcame them (or who they switched to). Ultimately, the trading community is much bigger than one company. Lean on the collective wisdom out there, it's the antidote to a centralized, censored info source.

VI. Conclusion: The King is Dead, If We Want Him to Be

MetaQuotes' MetaTrader platform rose to dominance in the 2000s and early 2010s, becoming the standard for retail forex trading. But that dominance has turned into a stranglehold of complacency and exploitation. They assume that because "everyone" uses MT4/MT5, they can get away with atrocious business practices, from skimming off failed freelance jobs, to hosting a marketplace rife with deceit, to silencing those who complain. It's a classic monopolist attitude: relying on inertia and the lack of awareness of alternatives.

Well, it's 2026, and we don't have to accept it anymore. Technology has moved on; platforms have evolved. We do not need to be using circa-2005 software under 2005-era opaque rules to trade the markets today. The only power MetaQuotes has is the power we continue to give it by staying in its ecosystem. If we walk away, if traders stop buying junk on the Market, if developers stop accepting unfair terms, if brokers see traders demanding other platforms, MetaQuotes will have two choices: drastically reform or fade into irrelevance.

Call to Action: Let's Break the Cycle

Stop buying Expert Advisors on MQL5's Market that don't have third-party verified performance. Don't feed the review scammers. If the shiny robot can't prove itself in real trading, don't give it your hard-earned money.

Stop hiring developers through MQL5's Freelance where the odds (and fees) are stacked against you. There are excellent coders out there who will work with you under fair terms. Support them elsewhere, not on a platform that might tax you for nothing.

Urge brokers to offer alternatives to MT4/MT5. If your broker only provides MetaTrader, ask why. There are other trading platforms (cTrader, TradingView integration, etc.) that many forward-thinking brokers now support. Make it known that you will favor brokers who give you a choice, ones that don't lock you into the MetaQuotes walled garden.

At the end of the day, MetaQuotes' grip on the industry persists because we collectively allow it. That can change rapidly once traders and developers see the truth and decide they've had enough. I, for one, have had enough. After 15 years, I chose to vote with my feet, I requested my MQL5 account be deleted and have transitioned my activities elsewhere. And I'm not alone. The chorus of discontent is growing, and it's only a matter of time before the "industry standard" is revealed to be just another outdated piece of software run by a company that stopped putting its users first long ago.

The king of retail trading platforms is dead, or at least dying. Long live whatever comes next, be it more open, fair, and community-driven. Let's trade in a world where the platforms work for us, not against us.

Together, we can pull the plug on the MQL5 trap. The sooner we do, the sooner this rigged game ends.