Support Board
Date/Time: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 08:35:09 +0000
[Locked] - CQG user experience - from an IT Pro
View Count: 2081
| [2021-12-22 11:15:28] |
| User12089 - Posts: 361 |
|
i am a professional software system engineer - MS Computer Science and 20 years industry experience there seems to be a growing and constant CQG bashing Sierra Chart Does Not Recommend CQG (Various Reasons) here is an objective and technical assessment from an IT Pro who has been using CQG (for order execution only) for 1 year flat out - day in day out Never experienced any disconnections or performance issues during order execution with CQG Have always used SC Data (never CQG) for market data feed SC has to keep in mind that most of its user base are AMP broker clients ... What the above means is that UNTIL the SC's own order execution interface/service is up and running (and ideally for the range of futures markets offered by CQG) and its is supported by AMP and its price and reliability at least matches CQG, SC must continue the support for the SC CQG interface for Order Execution (aka Trading) - dont care about any support for CQG Data Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 11:34:09
|
| [2021-12-22 13:57:20] |
| |
|
What the above means is that UNTIL the SC's own order execution interface/service is up and running (and ideally for the range of futures markets offered by CQG) and its is supported by AMP and its price and reliability at least matches CQG,
It is up and running, and the reliability is superior to CQG. Regarding price, it is free rather than a service like CQG costing brokers easily more than a million USD a year. And these are realistic numbers.Regarding exchange support, it covers CME and FairX and soon EUREX. We have no interest in getting involved in less common exchanges that are hardly traded among the Sierra Chart users. Never experienced any disconnections or performance issues during order execution with CQG This comes from users using CQG. Not Sierra Chart. We are just merely showing the problems that exist. there seems to be a growing and constant CQG bashing
What you see is a reflection of CQG, and in other posts, issues with Interactive Brokers, and others. It only makes sense for us to be developing and supporting our own services and providing the best quality and consistent service. Not others. We are here to act in the interest of Sierra Chart and therefore, provide users the best service to users at the lowest cost. It is up to brokers to support what we offer. If they do not, that is not our issue. We do have many AMP customers but it is not the majority of the user base. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 14:20:57
|
| [2021-12-22 14:23:01] |
| |
|
It only makes sense for us to be developing and supporting our own services and providing the best quality and consistent service. Not others.
And this is why we are working to phase out other services like Transact, CTS, Gain Capital. Supporting so many services makes no sense whatsoever and no one should be doing that any longer. It is a plain dumb operating model.We will not remove support for CQG because we already have it but we held off for years adding support for CQG. We were asked for CQG support for years but we consistently said no because they did not provide a proper interface to their system. It was a silly OLE based interface. So we were right not adding CQG support and when we said we were going to add it, we were never going to add market data support but unfortunately we got pressured into that and regret it. The CQG Web API has always been very complicated and we really do not like it. We really do not like it at all. We really just want it removed from Sierra Chart altogether. It just clutters our software. Especially their whole Google protocol buffers interface. We would like to just get rid of it. Although we are not going to do that, at least not in 2022, because of support for Asian exchanges and options. We are here to act in the interest of Sierra Chart, and Sierra Chart only, and provide the best quality of service to users. And therefore help users by providing them the best service at the lowest cost. We do not want to be wasting our time with other services. Most of our time, is wasted on CME market data policy and market data policy from other exchanges. That is why we strongly support exchanges like FairX, and that is the future. Not these dinosaur operating models where exchanges bill for market data, and treat the brokers, clearing firms, the technology providers, and the customers as if we are slaves regarding market data. This is completely ridiculous. Enough is enough. And why is CQG charging us every month for for connectivity? No one else does that. This is just dumb also. And once again when we post issues about CQG, that is coming from the users. It comes from the users. Not us. And based on all of the above, this also shows why we will never add support for tradeovate. So yet another service. Completely ridiculous that they think it made sense of creating yet another API for the industry. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 14:30:01
|
| [2021-12-22 14:37:04] |
| User12089 - Posts: 361 |
|
AMP offers very compelling business characteristics - until the SC order execution service starts supporting it / gets integrated with it OR SC becomes a broker and starts offering the same business characteristics, i would recommend to continue supporting CQG for Order Execution - unless you dont intend to follow the "walled garden" business model
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 14:37:30
|
| [2021-12-22 14:51:41] |
| User12089 - Posts: 361 |
|
bascially it is not even "about CQG" as such (even though it IS a reliable service) - it is about the fact that at the moment CQG is the only way to use AMP from/with SC ....
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 14:52:03
|
| [2021-12-22 14:54:39] |
| |
|
The proper operating model is that the exchanges provide simplified interfaces to their exchanges and applications develop directly to those. No intermediary. They can provide a simplified interface with full backend risk management, and continue to provide a lower level interface where the risk management is handled by the ISV. And that the exchanges do not charge for market data. Charging for market data is what creates so much complexity and negative side effects for everyone. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 14:55:04
|
| [2021-12-22 15:01:56] |
| User12089 - Posts: 361 |
|
the above statements / model description completely misses the Broker (e.g. AMP Futures) in the overall Technical and Market Structure Model described ps: just get AMP on board your new shiny Order Execution Service mate - the rest is just chit chat |
| [2021-12-22 15:06:31] |
| |
|
the above statements / model description completely misses the Broker (e.g. AMP Futures) in the overall Technical and Market Structure Model described No it does not. There would still be a broker. It is just that all of the order management, is with the exchange and not any intermediary. And the broker then accesses, the interfaces for that from the exchange. No different than when they use Firm Soft with the CME. Instead the orders are now going direct to the exchange and the exchange handles the risk management. Or the risk management can be done externally. Either way. It can be a choice. There simply is no need for any intermediary. And yes we understand that a system from a trading technology provider can bring multiple exchanges together under a single account, but this really adds a huge complexity, and reliability issues . Although each exchange should always really be a different account and in many cases is. The broker can just simply offer a way to move funds between accounts easily. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-22 15:34:48
|
| [2021-12-22 15:12:34] |
| User12089 - Posts: 361 |
|
yes i get that - one more reason why i dont care is it going to be CQG or SC Order Execution Service as long as i can use SC as the platform and AMP Futures as the broker So get on the road and do some business development to get AMP signed up and on boarded on your new shiny Order Execution Service. Note the key phrase "business development" |
| [2021-12-23 00:43:27] |
| User19165 - Posts: 346 |
|
Anonymous SC Staffer says: Regarding exchange support, it covers CME and FairX and soon EUREX. We have no interest in getting involved in less common exchanges that are hardly traded among the Sierra Chart users.
Well of course most of your users are using those exchanges since it is extremely hard to get many other exchanges unless you use CQG. So your user bias here could be a result of the policies chosen by Sierra. That is why we strongly support exchanges like FairX, and that is the future.
It doesn't matter if you think this is the future just because it is a nice clean interface to program towards. Traders are going to trade where the volumes are. I personally can't see it likely that FairX will succeed. There is no product difference to attract business, it is just more of the same in already fiercely competitive segment. FairX is hardly traded compared to a variety of other exchanges. So your actions contradict what you wrote in the first post.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2021-12-23 07:23:21
|
| [2022-04-05 22:55:11] |
| |
|
Regarding post #10, we did actually provide an explanation to this in another post, but the very brief answer is that FairX has no cost to us whatsoever, and the integration it is drastically easier in comparison to something like CME Group, and took a little of our time. Other exchanges are hugely different and have massive monthly costs to us, Have very complex integration, and all kinds of bureaucratic processes involved in the beginning and ongoing. There simply is no comparison between FairX and other exchanges. The time invested in FairX, is a mere super super tiny fraction compared to all of the ongoing questions we answer regarding CME Group market data on this board every day. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2022-04-05 23:04:25
|
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: