Why is TT data so bad?

Discussion in 'Data Sets and Feeds' started by canoe, Oct 25, 2018.

  1. canoe

    canoe

    For a company of Trading Technologies' caliber, it just makes no sense to me that TT still offers absolutely faulty bid-ask tick data. I mean, the data is just plain wrong.

    Compared to CQG's data, it's laughably bad. And on top of that, TT still charges $0.30/contract when using the TT platform, with which you wouldn't even be able to perform volume/orderflow analysis due to faulty TT datafeed.

    I can't be the only one who feels something is off here. How do these guys get away with charging more than CQG for a completely inferior datafeed product?
     
  2. TT News

    TT News ET Sponsor

    Sorry to hear you're having trouble. We'd like to help. What specific problem are you having with the data?
     
  3. CQG massages the data and so it is probably a bit slower than TT whereas TT is raw.
     
  4. CALLumbus

    CALLumbus

    What do you mean with massaged data, and what means raw ?
     
  5. canoe

    canoe

    TT data feed does not deliver correct bid and ask volume data which affects the identification of whether a trade occurs at the bid or the ask.

    This means you cannot use footprint charts to perform orderflow analysis and renders important studies like cumulative delta useless when using TT data feed. It's been a well-known complaint about TT amongst traders for years now.

    And I believe CQG provides unfiltered tick data with accurate bid-ask volume data so I'm not sure what MarkBrown means by "massaged"?
     
    CALLumbus likes this.
  6. Palindrome

    Palindrome

    What kind of "Massage" are we talking about here?
     
  7. CALLumbus

    CALLumbus

    Exactly, thats how it is !
     
  8. CALLumbus

    CALLumbus



    This guy has been comparing TT vs Sierra Chart with CQG feed, side by side.
    Very similar, but if you go to slow motion and then look at it frame by frame, you can see that Sierra/CQG is a bit faster than TT.

    This is exactly the same experience that I have with these platforms and data feeds. TT is good for sure, but to me the combination of Sierra Chart and CQG feed is unbeatable. Never hat slowdowns or lags, even on NQ during the crazy VIX spike in February this year, when the NQ was jumping 20-40 ticks up and down within seconds all day long.
    And in addition, Sierra Chart is the most lightweight and most customizable platform I have used so far... and I have used most of what has been and is around.
     
    s0mmi likes this.
  9. my experience with tt is that is by far the fastest of all feeds equal to the old globex terminals members had. i was able to compare them in the old cme building on direct members fiber optic feed to members servers.

    so it's all about your connection as much as the data company. in side by side tt will beat anything when connected to the same routes. you can't compare tt connected through a brokerage that may be on a cogent line or something with the members sonet loop in chicago.

    cqg will always be slower because they correct data on the fly with an algorithm and always have. also they will change data in historical so real time execution of an algo may put you long but in history it will show a short.

    there is much more to all this than most people know or are willing to study. as someone who has lost millions due to errors "i am the error king of knowledge". very few have witnessed live disasters at large trading organizations more than i have. cqg is probably the best fastest compromise of data there is but tt is faster given the same set of parameters.

    i love to hate both really - they are both good companies who will shove down your throat what they want you to have not what you want.
     
    patrickrooney likes this.
  10. CALLumbus

    CALLumbus

    I also like TT, but in my case my setup with CQG now works perfectly for me and better than my last TT setup.

    As far as I know and what is communicated officially by CQG they are using unfiltered data.
    Do you have any proof for your statement from above ? Which data are you exactly talking about ? It would be nice if I could learn some more about this.
     
    #10     Oct 26, 2018