Does a 100 percent win rate mean an investor never loses money?

No. It means every disclosed position that has closed so far closed in the green, which on Tenachine's data is 12 closed positions for the current 100 percent leader. A single loss on a future 13th trade would end the streak, and win rate never accounts for how large the wins or losses were.

Guide · 6 min read

Two investor rankings, one name that shows up on both

Q: Why would a top 10 win rate investor not also appear on the top 10 weighted return list?

Because the two rankings measure different things from the same trades. Win rate counts each closed position once regardless of size. Weighted return sizes each position by how much of the book it represented and by how far it moved. An investor can post a high share of winning trades that were each individually small, which lifts win rate without lifting weighted return by nearly as much.

Two top 10 rankings, drawn from the same 81 tracked investors, share exactly one name. The other nine slots on each list are different investors, and the gap between win rate and weighted return explains why.

Updated 2026-09-04

Only one name appears on both of Tenachine's top 10 super investor rankings. AltaRock Partners tops the win rate list at 100 percent, every one of its 12 disclosed positions closed in the green. Guy Spier tops the weighted return list at plus 157.6 percent, off 18 trades. Between those two top 10 lists, ranking the same 81 tracked investors, William Von Muefflingt is the only person who made both.

AltaRock Partners, 100.0% win rate, 12 trades
Nelson Peltz, 84.0% win rate, 25 trades
Dodge & Cox, 82.2% win rate, 118 trades
David Katz, 81.4% win rate, 167 trades
Mohnish Pabrai, 81.4% win rate, 43 trades
William Von Muefflingt, 81.4% win rate, 59 trades
Mairs & Power Growth Fund, 80.9% win rate, 94 trades
Christopher Bloomstran, 80.6% win rate, 62 trades
Yacktman Asset Management, 80.4% win rate, 92 trades
Lindsell Train, 80.0% win rate, 35 trades

Tenachine's other top 10, ranked by weighted return instead of win rate, pulls from the same 81 names and looks almost nothing like the first list.

Guy Spier, +157.6% weighted return, 18 trades
Thomas Gayner, +157.5% weighted return, 181 trades
Thomas Russo, +139.4% weighted return, 135 trades
Clifford Sosin, +121.9% weighted return, 10 trades
Chuck Akre, +119.1% weighted return, 73 trades
William Von Muefflingt, +104.0% weighted return, 59 trades
Warren Buffett, +98.8% weighted return, 140 trades
Robert Vinall, +76.1% weighted return, 20 trades
First Eagle Investment Management, +71.9% weighted return, 476 trades
Bryan Lawrence, +70.2% weighted return, 20 trades

Von Muefflingt sits at rank six on both lists, 59 trades either way, an 81.4 percent win rate and a 104.0 percent weighted return. Nobody else from the win rate top 10 shows up anywhere in the weighted return top 10, and nobody else from the weighted return top 10 shows up in the win rate top 10. Two different top 10 lists, drawn from the same 81 names, share exactly one entry.

Win rate counts each closed position equally, regardless of size or holding period. A high win rate paired with small winners and large losers can still lose money.
Tenachine, disclaimer on the win rate ranking

That line is Tenachine's own caveat on the ranking, not an outside criticism, and it explains most of the gap between the two lists. Win rate treats a position that returned 2 percent the same as one that returned 200 percent, both count as one win. Weighted return does the opposite, sizing every position by how much of the book it represented and by how far it moved. A manager can lead one ranking and rank nowhere near the top of the other without doing anything different. The two metrics are simply asking different questions of the same trades.

What the trade count is doing

AltaRock's 100 percent sits on 12 trades. Clifford Sosin's 121.9 percent weighted return sits on 10. Both are the smallest sample sizes on either list, and both produced the most extreme number on their respective ranking. That is not a coincidence unique to these two names, it is what small samples do: with 10 or 12 outcomes, one or two large results can push a percentage to an edge that a hundred outcomes would pull back toward the middle. Dodge & Cox's 82.2 percent win rate is built on 118 trades. First Eagle Investment Management's 71.9 percent weighted return is built on 476. Those numbers are less extreme and much harder to move with one more trade.

Von Muefflingt's appearance on both lists is the strongest single data point here, precisely because his sample size, 59 trades, sits in the middle of both rankings rather than at either small-sample edge. A high number built on a real trade count is a different claim than a high number built on a dozen positions, even when the two numbers look similar on the page.

Tenachine's guide on reading a 13F filing makes a related point about Warren Buffett's own numbers: a large gap between his weighted return and his median trade means a handful of positions are carrying his aggregate. The same habit applies here. Read the trade count next to any ranked percentage before treating the percentage itself as the finding.

Before treating either top 10 list as a signal to follow a name, check three things. How many trades sit behind the number. Whether the same investor shows up on the other ranking too. And whether the percentage is win rate, which ignores position size, or weighted return, which is built entirely from it. A name that leads one list and is absent from the other is not evidence of being a bad investor by the missing metric, it is evidence that win rate and weighted return are measuring different things.

AltaRock's 12 trades and Guy Spier's 18 are both real numbers, not errors, and both investors' pages report the trade count right next to the percentage for exactly this reason. Past performance does not predict future results, and neither ranking is investment advice. A win rate or a weighted return is worth reading only with the sample size attached to it.