Copy-trading apps make it look like you can pick a provider from a public board and leave the work to them. The quieter question is how stable that board is — and whether the numbers that look impressive on a profile actually line up with who is still listed months later.
TR-MATE keeps local snapshots of public copy-trading listings. Across XM.com, Binance Futures, XM Trading, and EBC, we fixed starting cohorts and checked whether the same provider IDs were still present on a later snapshot. XM.com and XM Trading are separate boards with separate ID namespaces — we never merge them into one “XM” rate. This measures listing survival, not follower profit and not a forensic proof that every missing account blew up.
What “gone” means: the provider ID was absent from our later public-list snapshot. Providers can leave rankings, go private, change visibility, or fall outside what a given scrape covered. Treat the numbers as stability of the public board, not a courtroom verdict on every account.
Key findings
- Public lists churn hard on more than one platform: over the longest available windows, XM.com retained 16% (Feb start), Binance Futures 36.5% after a coverage-safe March start, XM Trading 20.5% (Nov 2025 start), and EBC 8.3%. Windows differ by how long each board’s dated list maps run — not a same-duration league table.
- A busy board can still be mostly new names: lists refill with newcomers even while older IDs drop out.
- On XM.com, deep drawdown lined up with worse listing survival better than win rate did — win rate ≥90% did not protect listing persistence. That DD contrast is XM.com-scoped in this article.
- Binance Futures needs a coverage caveat: early scrapes were thin, later files much larger, so “missing from a file” is a weaker delisting signal there.
- Windows differ by board (~7 months XM.com, ~6 Binance Futures after the coverage cut, ~11 XM Trading, ~10 EBC). Direction is the same; rates are still not a same-duration league table.
- Rates use dated public listing maps for each board — not same-day analysis subsets that list fewer IDs. On XM Trading, the longest window uses dated analysis maps (headline 20.5%); denser May board dumps are the secondary ~31% series noted below.
How we measured listing survival
Each platform series is a set of point-in-time maps of provider IDs taken from public copy-trading UIs and stored locally. Private or unlisted accounts are outside the sample. Survival rates below use dated public listing maps for each board — not thinner same-day enrichment cuts. On XM Trading, the longest window is the dated analysis-map series (headline 20.5%); denser May board dumps are the secondary ~31% series noted in the chart section and FAQ.
- Cohort: IDs present on the first usable snapshot for that platform.
- Survived: same ID still present on the last snapshot.
- Windows (longest available dated list maps): XM.com 24 Feb 2026–19 Sep 2026 (208 days); Binance Futures from 30 Mar 2026 (≥500 listed) through 19 Sep 2026 (174 days); XM Trading 1 Nov 2025–21 Sep 2026 (325 days); EBC 13 Nov 2025–21 Sep 2026 (313 days).
- Thin days: a few snapshots are incomplete scrapes (for example a single-digit EBC day or a mid-series Binance file far below neighboring days). Those days are not treated as mass exits.
Survival across platforms
| Public list | Start → end | Cohort | Still listed | Survival | End list (new) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XM.com | 24 Feb 2026 → 19 Sep 2026 | 362 | 58 | 16.0% | 267 (209 new) |
| Binance Futures* | 30 Mar 2026 → 19 Sep 2026 | 529 | 193 | 36.5% | 1,942 (1,749 new) |
| XM Trading | 1 Nov 2025 → 21 Sep 2026 | 83 | 17 | 20.5% | 93 (76 new) |
| EBC | 13 Nov 2025 → 21 Sep 2026 | 96 | 8 | 8.3% | 169 (161 new) |
*Binance Futures scrapes grew from hundreds of rows toward ~1,900. Starting before coverage stabilized would exaggerate “disappearances.” Even with a ≥500 start rule, monthly residuals can bounce when coverage expands — so read Binance as a secondary series, not as clean as XM.com’s steadier residual path. EBC residuals also jump in places (for example a spring bounce before later months fell again).
Each line starts at 100% on cohort day one. In display order: XM.com finished at 16% (208 days from Feb), Binance Futures at 36.5% (174 days after the ≥500 start), XM Trading at 20.5% (325 days from Nov 2025 — longest window), and EBC at 8.3% (313 days). End-list sizes did not shrink with the starting cohorts — most late names are new (see the table). On Binance Futures the residual rose into ~60% by July, then dropped to ~35% in August — a coverage bounce, not a clean monotonic fade. A denser XM Trading board dump series that only begins in May 2026 still shows the same churn direction (about 31% still listed by late September).
What lined up with survival (and what did not)
The cleanest metric contrast is on XM.com, where the cohort is larger and scrape coverage is steadier (even though XM Trading’s dated window is longer). XM Trading DD/WR bands are not scored in this article.
| XM.com all-time drawdown | Providers | Still listed in Sep |
|---|---|---|
| < 15% | 47 | 14.9% |
| 15–30% | 65 | 29.2% |
| 30–50% | 103 | 20.4% |
| ≥ 50% | 147 | 7.5% |
Deep drawdown was the clear negative listing signal on XM.com. The shallowest DD band was not automatically safest — thinner histories can look “low DD” simply because they are short. Win-rate bands were not a clean ladder: ≥90% survived at 17.7%, <70% at 18.6%, while 70–90% was lower at 11.8%.
EBC points the same way on deep DD (DD ≥50% survival 1.4% in this longer window). Binance Futures, in the coverage-adjusted cohort, goes the other way: DD ≥50% still-listed at 61.2% versus 17.8% for DD <15%. Deeper drawdown lined up with higher listing residual there — so this article does not claim one drawdown rule for every platform.
Practical read: treat a glossy win-rate badge as secondary. Ask how deep the all-time drawdown is, how long the track record is, and whether the name is still on the board after boring months — not only after a hot week.
For profitability framing and follower-side mistakes, see Is copy trading profitable? and common copy-trading mistakes. For scam patterns, see copy trading scams.
A short checklist from the same work
- Expect churn — a full leaderboard today is not the same cast months later across these windows.
- Prefer boring persistence over hot badges — listing survival was low even among names that looked active at the start.
- On XM.com-style boards, demote win rate behind drawdown and history length — deep all-time DD lined up with worse survival; high win rate did not rescue it.
- Still inspect method — staying listed is not proof the strategy is gentle for followers (lot scaling and averaging can persist among survivors).
- Know your platform’s data quirks — expanding scrapes (Binance in this set) can fake “disappearances.”
Basics before you allocate: what copy trading is. Platform tools for inspecting individual providers: XM Copy Trade Analyzer and Binance Copy Trade Analyzer.
Limits
- Snapshots are intermittent, not tick feeds.
- Trade-history windows in single downloads are often capped near recent fills; method flags from trades are indicative.
- Platforms, UI filters, and scrape coverage change; another window can look different.
- This is not a tip sheet of named providers and not a claim about every copy-trading venue worldwide.
