I couldn't find specifics but ball parks were Sharpe > 1.0, drawdown < 5%, annual ROR > 10%

http://www.battlefin.com/blog/top-5-things-you-need-to-be-investable

A great interview with a battlefin winner:
http://tabbforum.com/microsites/quantforum/videos/battlefin-the-making-of-a-quant-mark-angil-of-rbd-adaptive

Around 21:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzD6vXtOomw

Good refresher @Gary. Imagine if funds, in general, could produce Sharpe > 2.0, annual returns of 25% and a beta of under 1.0, what a world it would be eh? As it is, 0% returns, negative Sharpe and huge betas are what are the fund world delivers (on average and with considerable speculation involved).

I can't help but think that The Q's current candidate list for strategy comparison is just a bit narrow. I, for one, will be curious as to how the current cadre of winning strats handle the next economic collapse.

Another consideration is overall expenses. The Quantopian backtester does not bookkeep expenses separately, but if I were an investor, I'd want to know how much is being paid to Interactive Brokers (or whatever broker), as a percentage of my investment capital. One could also dig into the securities being traded, to see how efficient they are (e.g. ETF expense ratios), since this is money that is flowing in the wrong direction, as well.

Some recent information that may assist those eyeing fund status:

From T.Balch's company:
http://lucenaresearch.com/wp-content/themes/lucena-theme/predictions/1-5-15.html

Note worthy content:

"
Research shows that only 10% of the actively managed funds were able to beat their respective market index benchmarks. According to Goldman Sachs, just 14% of large cap mutual funds have beaten the S&P 500 this year. Furthermore, long/short equity hedge funds, whose performance is all about stock picking, have managed to return on the average only 1% this year.  
 If I could sum up the main reasons active managers don't do as well in bull market years such as 2014, it boils down to three main factors:  
  High correlation performance and lack of dispersion of returns. When stocks' returns do not vary much, there is less to be gained by choosing the best stocks. High dispersion tends to accompany high volatility and 2014 was generally a year of low volatility.  
  Underperformance of growth stocks as compared to value stocks. In general, in 2014 smaller companies underperformed their large caps in their sector. The largest mega caps performed the best.  
  Many boutique investment firms and independent RIAs try to distinguish themselves by selecting exotic investment approaches primarily to drive a good marketing angle. Unfortunately, without the backing of a solid predictive analytics technology they are putting their clients' money and their business future at unnecessary risk.  
"

And from the same page above, but for a long bias funds:
http://www.barclayhedge.com/research/indices/ghs/Equity_Long_Bias_Index.html

For 2014 the average YTD % performance was only: 4.66%.
The average YTD for years 1997 - 2014 is: 11.4%