|
Paris, France
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: SC, NT, ToS
Trading: CME & Eurex Futures
Posts: 116 since Apr 2011
Thanks Given: 339
Thanks Received: 194
|
After 18 months using Market Delta (and IRT) I moved to Sierra Chart.
Why ?
Overall:
I use price action, market and volume profile, footprints and some fibs.
I find MD to be a good product but too expensive, SC a great product at a great price (BTW : I consider IRT to be great product at a good price).
In detail :
Chart bars: Both offer usual and modern bar types, time based, price range, reversal etc.. SC=MD.
Chart drawings: IMO, more powerful with SC. Selecting and adjusting some drawings, especially trend lines is better with SC. Seems silly but this is something I hate with MD. SC>MD.
Predefined settings: MD have buttons and this is great. SC offers specific settings you can save, it is good too but less comfortable. SC<MD.
Studies: Both are great. Settings are probably easier with MD but combination of studies are more powerful with SC and I use that to make custom studies. SC=MD.
Market Profile : MD uses a specific chart type. SC integrates the TPO through a study. I believe the SC logic behind this choice is better and more comfortable for the user. SC>MD.
Volume Profile : This is where MD is very good but SC is not far away and making huge progress. MD>SC.
Numbers bars/Footprints: After many tests, I believe they are both mature and great. I think MD footprints slightly lag (I can make a video). SC=MD.
Multiple windows management: SC is perfect. MD floating windows behave in an usual way that I find not comfortable. They are related to the main window instead of the screen and this is gives me a headache every day. SC>>MD.
Replay: Less options with SC but it is fast to start and play. MD has more options but takes minutes to restart. awfull. SC>MD.
Programming : MD RTL is easy for basic stuff. SC powerful but harder if you are not a coder (C++). But the spreadsheets in SC are simple and a better option than RTL IMO. SC>MD.
Support/Documentation: SC documentation is up to date and great, MD/IRT less. MD support is customer oriented, but SC support is given by people that make the product. IMO it is a better approach for an evolving product. SC>MD.
Versions: SC makes available ~2 versions per week. MD 1 every few weeks/months. Both seem heavily tested. My conclusion is that SC uses heavy automatic testing, agile approach to software development making a better software, faster, and in a more adaptable way. SC>>MD.
Price : They both do the job. SC cost 45$ / month full version, MD 200$ / month. SC>>MD.
This is simply my opinion, and again, I find MD to be a great tool .
W.
|
