What You Will Learn in This Guide
The Unicorn Model is a single-entry ICT setup: a breaker block overlapping a Fair Value Gap in the same zone. The Venom Model, as commonly taught, chains two Unicorn-style combinations in one move, with an inducement sweep between two legs, giving two entries. Choose Unicorn when the chart shows one clean overlap, and Venom when it shows two sequential structure-shift-and-gap legs. Neither is better; they suit different chart conditions.
Level: Advanced | Time: about 9 minutes | Cost: free to read online or download as a PDF
- Define the Unicorn Model and the Venom Model, and the building blocks they share
- Compare the two on structure shifts, Fair Value Gaps, breaker blocks and liquidity sweeps
- Understand how entry count and risk distribution differ between them
- Recognise the chart conditions that suit each model
- Apply a simple decision framework and a five-point checklist before using either model
Why Compare These Two Models
The Unicorn Model, introduced in our Advanced Institutional Concepts guide, is one of the cleanest confluence-based entries in the ICT toolkit — a breaker block and a Fair Value Gap overlapping in the same zone. The Venom Model borrows the same building blocks but stretches them across two separate legs, producing two entries instead of one.
Neither model is objectively "better" than the other — they're built for different chart conditions. This guide puts them side by side so it's easier to recognise, in real time, which one a given situation actually calls for.
Use the sticky bar above, or the cards below, to skip straight to the concept you're looking for.
How to Actually Use This Comparison (Before You Trade Either)
The most common mistake when comparing named models is treating the comparison as a search for "the best one," rather than a tool for matching the right model to the right chart condition. Both models depend on the same underlying skills — reading structure, spotting displacement, and locating Fair Value Gaps — covered elsewhere in this series.
Before applying either model, run it through three quick filters: Are the basics already solid? — neither model works without a reliable read on structure and FVGs first. Does the chart genuinely show one leg or two? — forcing a two-legged Venom read onto what's really a single clean Unicorn setup (or the reverse) adds confusion, not precision. Is the wider context supportive? — both models still need to align with the higher-timeframe trend to make sense.
What Is the Unicorn Model?
As covered in the earlier advanced concepts guide, the Unicorn Model is a single-entry setup: a breaker block — a former order block that failed and flipped role — overlapping with a Fair Value Gap in the same price zone. That overlap gives one clean, well-defined area to take one entry.
The strength of the Unicorn Model comes from simplicity — a single, tightly-defined zone with two independent sources of confluence pointing at the same spot.
What Is the Venom Model?
As it's commonly taught, the Venom Model is essentially two Unicorn-style combinations chained together within the same overall move: a first structure shift and Fair Value Gap produce an initial entry, price then sweeps a smaller inducement level, and a second structure shift and gap produce a follow-up entry further along the same directional move.
Because interpretations of this model vary across different educators and communities, treat this as the widely-taught version rather than a single, universally fixed rulebook.
Side-by-Side: Structural Requirements
| Requirement | Unicorn Model | Venom Model |
|---|---|---|
| Structure shifts needed | One | Two, in sequence |
| Fair Value Gaps needed | One | Two, one per leg |
| Breaker block required | Yes, overlapping the FVG | Not strictly required for both legs |
| Liquidity sweep between legs | Not applicable | Yes — an inducement sweep separates the two legs |
| Typical chart condition | One clean, decisive move | A longer, more drawn-out, two-stage move |
The Venom Model's second leg is essentially the same logic as the Unicorn Model applied a second time — the models share a common foundation rather than being built from entirely different concepts.
Entry Count & Risk Distribution
The Unicorn Model typically results in one entry, often taken with full intended size at the single overlap zone. The Venom Model spreads that same intended position across two separate entries at two different price levels, which can average the overall entry price across a larger portion of the move rather than depending entirely on one zone.
Two smaller entries generally means more decision points and more chances to manage risk along the way, but it also means the setup depends on two zones working out reasonably well, not just one.
When to Reach for the Unicorn Model
The Unicorn Model tends to fit best when a chart shows one sharp, decisive displacement move with a single obvious breaker-and-gap overlap — a market that made its structural point clearly and directly, without a lot of back-and-forth beforehand.
If the setup is straightforward enough that the same zone would likely be marked by most traders looking at the same chart, that clarity itself is a sign the Unicorn Model is the natural fit.
When to Reach for the Venom Model
The Venom Model tends to fit better when a move unfolds in two visible stages — an initial push, a pause with a liquidity sweep, and then a second push continuing the same overall direction — rather than one single clean leg. Choppier, more drawn-out trending conditions are where this two-legged structure naturally appears.
Forcing a Venom read onto a market that actually only shows one clean structural break tends to produce an unnecessary second entry that the price action doesn't really support.
Choosing Between Them: A Decision Framework
A simple, repeatable question resolves most cases: does the chart show one clean breaker-and-gap overlap, or two separate structure-shift-and-gap combinations separated by a liquidity sweep? One overlap points to the Unicorn Model; two sequential legs point to the Venom Model.
When it's genuinely unclear which pattern is forming, many traders default to waiting rather than forcing either model — a chart that doesn't cleanly fit one description yet may simply need more time to develop.
Common Unicorn & Venom Mistakes to Avoid
Forcing a two-legged read onto a single clean move
Looking for a second Venom-style entry on a chart that only ever showed one decisive structural break adds an unnecessary, unsupported trade.
Skipping the inducement sweep check
Treating any two structure shifts as a Venom setup, without a genuine liquidity sweep connecting them, loosens the model past the point of being meaningful.
Ignoring the shared foundation
Attempting either model without first being comfortable reading structure, displacement and FVGs on their own tends to produce unreliable results.
Treating one model as universally superior
Neither model is inherently better — each fits a different chart condition, and picking the wrong one for the situation defeats the purpose of having both.
Doubling risk instead of dividing it
Taking two full-size entries on a Venom setup, rather than splitting the original intended size across both legs, changes the total risk taken significantly.
Assuming rigid, universal definitions
Since terminology like this varies across educators, assuming every source defines the Venom Model identically can lead to confusion when comparing material from different places.
Your Unicorn/Venom Confirmation Checklist
Before entering either setup in this guide, run through this five-point check:
One Leg or Two, Clearly
Does the chart genuinely show a single overlap, or two separate legs — rather than an ambiguous in-between?
Structure Shift Confirmed
Has each required structure shift actually closed beyond a genuine, meaningful swing point?
FVG Present at Each Zone
Is there a usable Fair Value Gap at the overlap (Unicorn) or at each leg (Venom)?
Inducement Sweep Present (Venom Only)
For a Venom setup, did a genuine liquidity sweep occur between the two legs?
Defined Risk
Do you know exactly where you'd be proven wrong on each entry, and have you placed a stop-loss there before entering?
Practice Exercises: Apply It on Real Charts and Chains
Reading a concept is not the same as spotting it live. Work through these on the Nifty option chain, and treat the results as practice, not proof. No real orders needed.
Mark one leg or two
On chart replay of one instrument, find five completed directional moves. For each, note whether it shows one breaker-and-gap overlap or two structure-shift-and-gap legs separated by a sweep.
Rebuild the comparison table
From memory, write out the structural comparison: structure shifts, Fair Value Gaps, breaker block, liquidity sweep and typical chart condition. Then check it against the guide.
Plan two entries on paper
For one two-legged move, mark both entries, a stop for each and a shared target. Compare the average entry price with a single entry at the first zone. Do not place the trade.
Practise waiting
Find a chart that does not cleanly fit either description. Write down what would need to happen for it to qualify, instead of forcing a label on it.
About the Author and the Trading Course in Boisar, Dahanu, Palghar & Online
This guide is written by Deepak Kevadia, founder and mentor of Chart Code and BSE NISM certified. Chart Code is a stock market training institute at 208, Yash Padma Arcade, Boisar Tarapur Road, Boisar, Palghar, Maharashtra. Learners from Boisar, Dahanu, Palghar and nearby towns can attend classroom batches in Boisar, and learners anywhere in India can join live online.
Classroom trading course in Boisar
Structured, hands-on batches at the Boisar institute, open to learners from Dahanu, Palghar and nearby areas.
Live online trading course
The same structured learning from anywhere in India, with a mentor you can question.
Free webinar and free PDF library
Try the teaching style before you enrol, and keep studying with free guides.
Questions about batches? Use the query form or call +91 95121 00588.
This guide compares two ICT-style entry frameworks for study and is not investment advice or a recommendation to trade any instrument. Interpretations of these models vary between educators, and no model works every time. Trading carries a high risk of loss, so always define your stop-loss before entering.