Kochman’s and Badarinathi’s mathematical case for upside deviation deals with portfolio upside deviations being divided by a market’s upside deviations to so show the resulting ratio and how it facilitates other tests for positive or negative skewness. The article discusses how CAPM is inappropriate for the evaluation of portfolios given that is not only assumed that the returns on distributions are symmetrical, but that the beta (performance and return-to-risk ratios) underestimates the risk of larger numbers of mutual funds. Kochman and Badarinathi needed to answer two questions; can upside deviation be the means for portfolio evaluations and can this be done by taking the upside deviation of portfolios and divide those figure by the upside deviation of the market? Kochman and Badarinathi believe that to make a case for upside deviation as a means for portfolio evaluations is to take the upside deviation of the portfolio(s) and dividing it by the market(s) upside deviation. This would result with a ratio that facilitates another test of positive or negative skewness. To test whether the ratio of portfolio-to-market upside deviations as a success, a test on fund returns would need to be conducted to ensure a meaningful difference between upside deviations, portfolios, and markets. The overall findings showed that the relationships between low betas and low upside volatility appeared to be weaker than the relationships between high betas and high upside volatility. In addition a greater contribution of the prospective measure shows that DDP/DDM does monitor a portfolio’s control of downside deviations and that UDP/UDM reflects the leverage from upside deviation.