A backtest that finishes at +100% is not the same strategy if reaching that return required surviving a -60% drawdown. In live operation, the path matters as much as the endpoint.

MDD measures how far the equity curve falls from a prior peak

Maximum drawdown measures the largest peak-to-trough decline in the equity curve. A strategy may eventually recover, but a deep drawdown raises a separate question: could the capital, risk limits, and operator realistically have survived the path to that recovery?

SAME FINAL RETURN, DIFFERENT PATH
Strategy AGentle rise, low drawdown
Strategy BSharp drop, then recovery · High drawdown
FinalIf you look at the endpoints, both may look the same.

Deeper losses require disproportionately larger gains to recover.

A -10% loss needs about +11.1% to recover, while a -50% loss requires +100%. The deeper the loss, the faster the required recovery return grows.

MDD alone is not enough

Also examine drawdown duration, whether losses cluster in a particular market regime, and whether the strategy remains viable at a smaller position size. MDD and total return together provide a much clearer picture of practical tradability.