There are a number of different technology providers that provide real-time & historical data to trade the futures markets with Sierrachart. What would you say are the pros and cons of using Sierrachart’s own real-time & historical datafeed compared to the other available options?
In my opinion, the only motivation for a company to use its historical bid/ask data is because it has better ability to provide support and fix any data issues that may arise such as historical backfills. To that end, the advantage for the customer who utilizes Sierra Chart data is a potentially a better customer service and quick turn around time to resolving customer’s data issues.
I do not think that there is a negative per se to using the data feed that Sierra chart provides, but some users are using alternatives such as DTN IQ or rely on the history that the execution data feed provides (CQG, CTS or Rithmic in the case of the data feeds they provide).
Optimus Futures Support
Thanks. I have had a good experience with Sierrachart’s datafeed. It may be worth adding it to the list of datafeeds that Optimus works with. Perhaps listing it as “Sierrachart (Barcharts)”.
Yes, that is a good idea. For the most part, on our data feeds page https://optimusfutures.com/Datafeeds.php should reflect only those data feeds that the trader can execute on. However, we should add a category of external data feeds that reflects these choices. Thank you for the suggestion.
Optimus Futures Support
Maybe say “Sierrachart (Barcharts) datafeed - execution independent”
I recommend Sierra’s datafeed. I would like them to have server side functionality that would integrate with client side orders so if we lose connection, an order is on the server to protect us from loss. Right now they have bracket orders on their server.
how is the Sierra Chart Order Routing Feed? (it uses TT) - also how is TT in general compared to CQG, Rithmic, CTS?
Of all of these which would be best for stability/reliability, speed, market depth, etc.?
Currently, we are routing through all of them and each one has it’s own advantages. We can not say one is the “BEST” because connectivity and execution are all a function of where the trader resides and his or her infrastructure. We do not want anyone of our futures traders to feel like they have made a bad choice about their execution provider. This is just a short summary, and if you have additional questions, you are more than welcome to ask here!
Rithmic provides low latency execution, unfiltered data and has the ability to show on the DOM all the Bids and Asks that the CME provides. This means that you will be able to see way above the 10 levels that most data feed providers show. In addition, Rithmic allows multiple concurrent logins at no additional cost if you use the same login credentials. This means you can be on Sierra and also use their own R Trader platform to see the executions that are occurring, rejected orders and open orders. To be honest, I think R Trader organized it in a good manner, and if you use RIthmic, you can be logged on both. Also, if you use OCOs, we highly recommend to place them on R-Trader.
CQG provides the largest access to Futures exchnages worldwide through some of our FCMs. Also, if you have CQG credentials you have the ability to log into their desktop and mobile solutions in case you need such access. You can log in only to one device at a time, and if you need to be logged to multiple devices than CQG charges for that. CQG provides good solid data and execution.
CTS T4 data provides stable data and those who like the CTS-T4 data swear to its unprecedented stability and execution. You can use CTS own platform T4 for execution, and their data over the charting with Sierra which could provide very stable execution. One thing that we noticed is customers outside that are outside of the USA who use CTS data experience very good stability and execution.
TT: We just recently starting adding customers on to this and that is where Sierra’s efforts have been going. Sierra says that this order routing at this point is the “best” due to its ability to have orders route and reside on the Sierra infrastructure. However, TT does not provide margin-based risk management and you need to be specific as far as contracts you wish to trade. In the event of a loss of funds, you could still trade the same number of contracts and that should not be the case. TT does allow you to stop trading and liquidation if you reach a certain level. If we get more details or updates about this, we will do our best to update.
Let us know if you have any additional questions.
thanks for the great response - it is hard to make sense of search results about data feeds as things change over time.
I have noticed that sometimes there can be delays in processing on a CTS demo account during volatility on SC - other times it is fine but I imagine this must be just because it is a demo account. CQG demo accounts sometimes just stop working on ninjatrader. I know you shouldn’t judge by a demo account but it does make me stop and think if it will happen on their lives feeds or not. I have not experienced it on a CQG live feed and I’ve never used a CTS live feed
You are welcome. Just choose one and run with it, and we will do our best to support it. Just as an FYI, most of our customers today use RIthmic or CQG.
I think that since we are talking about Sierra, let’s not mix it with other platforms. Our experience with CQG both live and simulated, have been good. We would be more than happy to set you up with a Futures trading account so you can test the data and it’s execution.
you know, one thing that confuses me - one indicators vendor was telling me that Rithmic is much better than CQG because it displays more levels … and I asked if this was important for his indicators (which were footprint indicators) and he said yes… and I don’t really understand why…
However, really I’m wondering if it makes any difference to volume profiles - I can’t see why it should. Rithmic does have some good things going for it like the multi-login thing but from reading Sierra’s documentation and forums, it seems to me that they are really not that enthusiastic about supporting Rithmic and that worries me. Maybe it’s just my impression.
I am not an expert on the FootPrint methodology, and I don’t know what the indicator does.
But at some point the level of orders drops above ten, and it is constantly cancelled and replaced.
So I am not sure what exact value these numbers (beyond the 10) provide as value to users.
The indicator wizard would know better.
But, Rithmic also has a feature that lets you know where you are in the queue, and how many orders are in front of you when you place an order. This in my opinion is a good feature to have and it is quite useful.
Your impression is right. Sierra does engage in direct criticism of how Rithmic works. Honestly, I stay out of it and let these two programmers, one from Rithmic and the other from Sierra, “duke it out” about how orders should be routed, OCO implemented, etc. But, the most important thing is that Sierra does let the RIthmic data run through it, and many of our customers are very happy with it. Sierras knows at the end of the day that it’s customers that determine what is best for its customer, and personally I still recommend Rithmic as a choice because their trading needs dictate it.
for users located in Asia, what would make the most sense? Rithmic? any other good options?
Rithmic has Singapore servers in Sierra Charts… I can’t find similar options for CQG or CTS - so I assume that means that CQG and CTS in Sierra communicate directly with Chicago?
I do not quite understand how a regional gateway works. Do orders execute faster when using a regional gateway than directly communicating with Chicago? how do they manage that?
The regional gateways are most effective when a user’s internet connection to Rithmic Aurora or Chicago gateways is slow or not stable.
Intermittent drops happen most often for users located in the Far East and some regions of the middle east. But it can happen anywhere. For such users, they connect to one of Rithmic’s regional gateways. The path the data travels could be a bit longer, but the quality of the connection is better such that there will be fewer retransmissions and fewer disconnects.
CQG does have gateways globally, but Optimus Futures has to request it from the FCM.
As far as we know, CTS has only Chicago connections.
thanks for the answers - they help… with CQG after such a thing is setup with the FCM, You would just log into Sierra normally and somehow it would tell Sierra what server to use?
Do you know if Rithmic Singapore servers actually work with Sierra Charts?
This would not show on your computer for CQG. This needs to be requested from the FCM, and it is done on their risk management system for CQG called CAST.
The 3rd party software could be anything, it’s actually Rithmic that sends the orders, so yes, it will work with Sierra.
Great post from a while back.
Can you confirm or update any major changes in the feeds today?
As of March 2021, I find the following benefits using Sierra Chart’s own Denali feed for data:
- Provides 15 days of Level 2 historical data. (Bookmap offers only 1 hour, or 24 hours if you pay extra).
- Provides MBO information so you can see the size of orders in the book (optional extra).
- Loading historical tick data is very fast; they offer several compression options at their server end.
- Full L2 market depth.
- You have full API access to the data via ASCIL, using C++ (no extra cost for a developer license).
- Excellent documentation for developers on their website.
- It is extremely cost effective compared to other feeds.
I have not used Sierra Chart’s own feed for order routing. Despite what they say on their support site, I use Sierra Chart with Rithmic and it works flawlessly.
I am returning to Sierra Chart after trying other spreadsheet based programs
to create additional automation.
I was considering Denali for Data feed and Rithmic for execution, just like your setup.
Do you have any experience of using CQG vs. Rithmic for execution/routing?