The starting question was narrow on purpose: if the only thing you controlled was which calendar month to buy in — same ETF, same $100, same holding period — how much would that one decision have changed the outcome over a quarter-century? Everything else is held constant so that the month of purchase is the single variable left to compare.
Across 2000–2025 the strategies finish close together, from +852.1% for the strongest month down to +796.5% for the weakest. A gap exists, but set against 26 years of compounding it is narrow, and the author's reading is that the ranking itself is the least interesting part. The more telling result is how little the chosen month mattered once the money simply stayed invested.
Each purchase is priced at the chosen month's closing value, a single point per year per strategy. Real investors can buy on any day, so a month that ranks well here does not mean every date within that month would have produced the same result.
The figures are price return only. Dividends and their reinvestment are excluded, as are trading fees, taxes, bid-ask spread, slippage, and currency effects. The numbers will therefore differ from QQQ's official total-return performance.
This is a retrospective comparison of one specific window, 2000 through 2025. A month's past standing carries no guarantee that the same order would hold again, and QQQ's own materials note that past performance does not indicate future results.
The vertical value is each strategy's gain measured against its own cumulative contributions, which reach $2,600 by 2025 — an accounting ratio, not the price change of QQQ. A headline figure above 800% means the portfolio grew to several times the money paid in, not that QQQ rose by that amount over the period.
It is also neither monthly dollar-cost averaging — each strategy invests once a year, not every month — nor a seasonal in-and-out trade, since every position is held rather than rotated. And it cannot say why one month led; it compares outcomes without isolating a cause.