Nobody in this category publishes a depth comparison, and the reason is that depth is where most platforms are weakest. The figures below come from each platform's own page wherever one exists. Where a platform publishes nothing, we say that rather than repeat a number from a review site.
Depth matters for one specific reason, and it is not thoroughness for its own sake. A backtest that starts after 2020 has never seen a crash. The 2020 COVID fall, the 2018 NBFC crisis and the 2022 bear market are the three events that tell you what a strategy does when it is wrong, and a five-year window today contains none of them.
What each platform gives you
| Platform | History depth |
|---|---|
| StockMock | Stated per index on their own plans page: BANKNIFTY from 2 January 2017, NIFTY from 15 February 2019, SENSEX from August 2023. The simulator is a separate product and starts at 1 January 2021StockMock's own plans page, 9 Sept 2026 |
| Streak | 5 years, on the daily timeframeZerodha Z-Connect, 17 Jan 2024 |
| AlgoTest | Not publishedRe-check against the product itself before Wave 1 publishes. |
| uTrade Algos | Not publishedChecked 9 Sep and NOT resolvable: uTrade publish no history depth anywhere public. Stays secondary-sourced, and any article citing it must say where the figure comes from. |
| Tradomate | Not published |
Two things about that table are worth saying out loud.
StockMock is the only one that publishes depth per index, and they deserve credit for it. Their plans page states a start date for BANKNIFTY, for NIFTY and for SENSEX separately, plus a different one again for their simulator. Everyone else, ourselves included until recently, publishes one number and lets you assume it applies everywhere. It does not, for anyone.
Two of those rows are not from the platform's own page, and the table says so on each cell. We could not find a public statement of history depth from uTrade Algos anywhere, and AlgoTest's figure comes from a thread on their own community forum rather than their product. Both are labelled. Neither is a number we would build an argument on.
Where each one is genuinely better than us
This section exists because a comparison in which the author wins every row is not a comparison.
StockMock has deeper expiry-day and structure tooling than we do. If your question is about what happens on expiry day specifically, their simulator is built for exactly that and ours is not.
Streak deploys live. It places real orders through Zerodha. EdgeTest is analysis only and does not trade at all, which is a category difference rather than a feature gap. It is also free for Zerodha customers, so for a great many people the honest recommendation is to try it first.
AlgoTest is intraday-first across every underlying. Our options engine checks its rules once a day on the settle price, except on one index. If you are testing something that lives and dies inside the session, they are built for it and we mostly are not.
uTrade Algos has the best forward-testing flow we have seen anywhere: the same Deploy button as going live, with paper trading as one of the broker choices and no margin required.
Where we fit
Our equity history is Ten years of end-of-day equity history, and the index options go back further than anything else we could verify: Index options from 2016 for NIFTY and BANKNIFTY, 2021 for FINNIFTY, 2022 for MIDCPNIFTY and 2024 for NIFTY Next 50
Both of those come with a limit that belongs in the same sentence rather than a footnote.
The per-index options dates are listing dates, not gaps in our data. Ten years of options history cannot exist for an index whose options have existed for five. Anyone quoting a single number for options depth across five indices is either rounding or guessing.
And the equity history has a hole that no amount of depth fixes, which is worth more than any row in that table: Ten years of end-of-day equity historyThe universe holds no delisted companies, so every long-run result carries survivorship bias. We say so on the results page. Our coverage is 3,519 listed companiesNot every one of them has ten years of price history behind it. A backtest that never had the chance to buy a company that later went to zero is flattering you, and every platform in this comparison has the same problem.
Is five years of history enough to test a strategy?
It depends entirely on what you are trying to learn. Five years from today covers no market crash, so it can tell you how a strategy behaves in a rising or sideways market and nothing about how it behaves when everything falls at once. If your strategy has a stop loss, the window that matters most is the one where the stop actually gets hit.
Why do platforms give different history for different indices?
Because the contracts themselves started at different times. FINNIFTY options began trading in January 2021 and MIDCPNIFTY in January 2022, so no platform can offer ten years on either. A platform quoting one depth figure for all indices is telling you about its marketing rather than its data.
Does more history make a backtest more reliable?
It makes it harder to fool yourself, which is not the same thing. A longer window contains more regimes, so a strategy that survives it has survived more kinds of market. It does not fix survivorship bias, look-ahead bias or an over-fitted rule, and a ten-year backtest of a badly specified strategy is just a wrong answer with more decimal places.
How much of this can I check for free?
All of the market data on this site, with no account: the option chain and max pain for five indices, and every F&O stock with its own page. Backtesting on the free plan is Unlimited backtests on the free plan. What Free limits is DATA - three years, the Nifty 50, no options - never the number of runs. The full history and options backtesting are on the paid plans, which are on the pricing page.