Guides · FARO team · August 6, 2026 · 8-minute read

We analyzed 25 Spanish-language trading signal channels: this is what they don’t publish

Translation; the Spanish text prevails.

Between August 4 and 5, 2026 we reviewed 25 public Telegram channels that publish trading signals in Spanish. We were not trying to find out who gets it right most often. We were looking for something prior and simpler: can what they say be checked?

The short answer is: almost never.

The six figures

Of the 25 channels reviewed:

The second-to-last one surprises in the opposite direction: only 2 of the 25 promise a return with specific figures (“+X% a month”, “double your account”). The rest are careful about what they promise.

That is the finding we did not expect. They don’t lie with numbers. They simply don’t publish the ones that would let you judge them.

The figure that sums it up

One in five channels publishes a signal that can be verified: the asset, the entry price, the target and the stop. With those four pieces of data, anyone can note down the trade and check later how it ended.

None of those five channels publishes afterwards how it ended.

Five of the 25 channels, not necessarily the same ones, do show some trade closed at a loss among their recent messages. None of them publishes the total. That is the distinction that matters: showing one specific loss shows good will, but it does not let you rebuild the track record. Only the aggregate does, and nobody publishes it.

It is not that the bad channels do things badly and the good ones well. It is that even those who do the hard part —giving specific levels and risking being checked— skip the only part that lets you judge them: saying what happened with that signal. All of them. The ones that went wrong too.

Why an incomplete track record is not a track record

A channel that publishes its wins and keeps quiet about its failures is not exaggerating: it is publishing something else. It is called survivorship bias and it works like this:

Imagine a hundred signals. Forty go well, sixty go badly. If only the forty good ones are published, the reader does not see a track record with a 40% win rate. They see a channel that never fails. And there is no way to detect it from outside, because what is missing leaves no trace.

That is why the aggregate summary matters more than any screenshot of a winning trade. A total —how many trades, how many went well, how many went badly, how much was lost in the worst streak— cannot be dressed up without lying. A selection of screenshots can.

None of the twenty-five publishes that total.

What to check before following a channel

Without naming anyone, this is what can be checked in five minutes in any public channel:

1. Scroll back three or four weeks. Do any trades closed at a loss show up? If there isn’t a single one in a month, it is not that there are none: it is that they aren’t published.
2. Look for a total. Is there any message with the balance for the month or the quarter, with the number of trades and the net result? Or only screenshots of isolated gains?
3. Look at any signal. Does it come with an entry, a target and a stop? Without a stop there is no declared risk, and without declared risk the result can be told in many ways.
4. Search for the word drawdown, or any mention of the worst streak. It is the metric nobody shows willingly, and the one that tells you the most.
5. Check whether the entry price was touched. A signal whose entry was never reached is neither good nor bad: it never existed. The percentage of signals whose entry was really reached —the fill rate— is the most uncomfortable metric of all, and the least published.

None of these five checks requires knowing about trading. It only requires the information to be there.

Methodology

Sample. 25 public Spanish-language Telegram channels that publish trading signals. Selected by searching Telegram directly with generic terms in Spanish (for “trading signals”, “forex signals”, “crypto signals”, “gold”, “futures”, “funded accounts”), deliberately looking for a mix of sizes: 11 channels with more than 10,000 subscribers, 9 between 1,000 and 10,000, and 5 between 100 and 1,000. Channels with fewer than 100 subscribers are excluded: a newly created channel is not comparable with one of 40,000, and without a declared threshold the inclusion would look arbitrary.

Collection dates. August 4 and 5, 2026. All the data refers to what could be observed in the public channel on those dates.

What was recorded. Only observable facts, without judgments: whether trades closed at a loss appear in the recent messages; whether there is any aggregate summary of results; whether the signals include an entry, a target and a stop; whether any paid product is mentioned; whether a return is promised with figures; whether any risk metric is published.

Criteria. “Publishes the result of all its trades” requires an aggregate summary with the number of trades and the net result for the period. Showing some trade closed at a loss among the recent messages does not meet the criterion: showing an isolated loss does not let you rebuild the track record. “Complete signal” requires all three levels: entry, target and stop. “Promises returns” requires a figure or an explicit guarantee about the future; generic sales language does not count.

Confidence intervals. The percentages come with a 95% Wilson interval. With 25 cases, an observed 0% means the real value is between 0% and 13%: not that it is impossible to find an exception, but that if one exists it is rare.

Limitations, stated plainly:

• Language criterion. Only channels whose messages are in Spanish are included. The first version of this study did not check this criterion and contained 13 channels in English; corrected on August 18, 2026. The sample does not distinguish between channels from Spain and from Latin America: the criterion is the language of publication, not the country.
• Two channels from the original sample have disappeared from Telegram between the data collection and the review of August 18, 2026. It has not been possible to determine whether they were removed by their owners or by the platform. They have been excluded from the count. It is a limitation of the method, and also an illustration of the problem: a record that can disappear entirely is not a record.
• Some channels in the sample have almost identical profiles (subscriber range, format, product) and could belong to the same operator with duplicate channels. Counting them as one, the main finding does not change: there is still none that publishes the result of all its trades and none that shows a risk metric.
• A one-off observation, not a follow-up. Each channel was reviewed once. A channel that published complete results every quarter might not have done so in the observed window.
• We don’t measure returns. We have not evaluated whether these channels’ signals make or lose money. It would have been impossible: it is exactly the figure they don’t publish.
• Whether messages are deleted was not recorded. We considered measuring it and dropped it: telling a deleted message apart from a message that never existed is not reliable from outside. In 20 of the 25 cases it could not be determined, so this article makes no claim about deletions.

Why we don’t name channels. The relevant figure is the aggregate. Pointing at specific channels would turn a study into an individual accusation, with less informational value and more risk of error about a particular case. Anyone can apply the five checks above to the channel they are interested in.

Why we did this

FARO is a platform for verifying analysts’ track records. We don’t issue signals: we seal other people’s at the market price within minutes of their publication, so that afterwards they cannot be modified or selectively deleted. That is the whole product.

This study exists because we wanted to know whether the problem we assumed was real, and how big it was. It is, and it is more specific than we thought: what is missing is not honesty in the promises, it is information in the results.

We have an obvious interest in this conclusion being the right one. That is why the method, the criteria and the limitations are above, and why the five checks work without using FARO. The rules FARO uses to calculate each number are published in the methodology, with the exact formulas.

This article is for information and educational purposes. It does not constitute financial advice or an investment recommendation, and it does not evaluate the returns of any specific service. Past returns do not guarantee future returns. The data corresponds to the observation of public channels on the dates indicated.