PolyBackTest vs PolyOrderBooks

PolyBackTest positions as a backtest product: sub-200ms depth claimed, BTC/ETH/SOL Up/Down only, an AI-backtest add-on, and a demo-in-60-seconds homepage with backtest results above the fold. PolyOrderBooks positions as a data and tooling company: the archive at 250ms on every plan, 8 coins, a Python SDK on PyPI, an npm MCP server, and a citable Zenodo dataset.

The honest frame: they own the outcome upside-down promise and distribution; this site owns the spec sheet, the open surface, and the verification.

Their revenue and traffic are third-party-reported signals, dated 2026-09-09 in our research: roughly $8k MRR from a Stripe-verified listing, ~5.2k monthly visits, a repurposed ~82k-follower crypto X account, and ~2,700 templated SEO pages. Treat those as market signals, not audited facts — none are figures we assert of them first-hand.

The steadier observation is structural: they have no SDK, no MCP, no open dataset, and their pages are largely templated boilerplate (Google's helpful-content risk), while their claims of "the only sub-second dataset" do not hold — polyhistorical runs 300ms and marketlens is tick-level.

Choose PolyBackTest if you want a turnkey backtest UI over a three-coin universe and do not need code. Choose PolyOrderBooks if you need eight coins, an auditable archive, SDK/MCP integration, citable open data, or cheaper AI-backtest quota — the deciding factors are coverage, tooling, and verification, all measurable on this site's dataset.

A trader can honestly use both: they price the same reference prints, and this page's job is to make the difference legible rather than to declare a universal winner.

• Compare page
• Backtest API
• Backtest methodology