Sierra vs. Ninja : why I chose ..... - Sierra Chart | futures io social day trading
futures io futures trading


Sierra vs. Ninja : why I chose .....
Updated: Views / Replies:39,021 / 160
Created: by josh Attachments:11

Welcome to futures io.

(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)

futures io is the largest futures trading community on the planet, with over 90,000 members. At futures io, our goal has always been and always will be to create a friendly, positive, forward-thinking community where members can openly share and discuss everything the world of trading has to offer. The community is one of the friendliest you will find on any subject, with members going out of their way to help others. Some of the primary differences between futures io and other trading sites revolve around the standards of our community. Those standards include a code of conduct for our members, as well as extremely high standards that govern which partners we do business with, and which products or services we recommend to our members.

At futures io, our focus is on quality education. No hype, gimmicks, or secret sauce. The truth is: trading is hard. To succeed, you need to surround yourself with the right support system, educational content, and trading mentors Ė all of which you can find on futures io, utilizing our social trading environment.

With futures io, you can find honest trading reviews on brokers, trading rooms, indicator packages, trading strategies, and much more. Our trading review process is highly moderated to ensure that only genuine users are allowed, so you donít need to worry about fake reviews.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading sites:
  • We are here to help. Just let us know what you need.
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive in our community.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, we can help you find it.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.

You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community.  It's free and simple.

-- Big Mike, Site Administrator

Reply
 11  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 

Sierra vs. Ninja : why I chose .....

  #51 (permalink)
Student Of The Markets
New York
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Sierra Charts, TOS
Favorite Futures: E-mini S&P 500
 
Posts: 753 since Aug 2010
Thanks: 448 given, 433 received


Futures Operator View Post
Why not use SC for DOM/execution as well? Does NT have anything over SC in this regard?


NT DOM is more user friendly IMO and it is something that I have used the last 3 years.

Reply With Quote
 
  #52 (permalink)
in a meditative state...
Portugal
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Multicharts, Jigsaw
Broker/Data: Stage5, OEC
Favorite Futures: Treasuries
 
arnie's Avatar
 
Posts: 801 since May 2010
Thanks: 709 given, 976 received


Futures Operator View Post
Being a common human/non programmer, would love to hear your reasoning behind not being able to see why one would choose SC over MC.

For many reasons.
I find MC much more stable than SC.

The integration of multiple brokers and feeds are far superior on MC than SC. For you to have charts from IQFeed and the DOM from a broker together you need to have 2 instances of SC opened and than import the chart from one instance to the other. Although this works perfectly well on SC, with MC you can trade directly over an IQFeed chart using whatever broker on their list without having to import stuff from one instance to the other.

I find MC more user friendly than SC but as I explained before, if you started to work first with SC and than move to MC you would have the same sentiment, SC would be more user friendly to you than MC.

Please don't miss understand me, everyone that asks me which platforms to choose from, SC will always be part of that list, like MC and IRT.
For those that are looking at a trading platform and volume profile capabilities my first choice will always be towards SC. If the objective is only a chart platform with volume profile capability my first choice will always be IRT. If their main objective is a trading platform than my first choice will always be MC.

You need to work with what is available to you and take advantage of it.

I dream with the day MC offers volume profile capabilities...

If I become half a percent smarter each year, I'll be a genius by the time I die

Last edited by arnie; August 30th, 2012 at 10:09 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to arnie for this post:
 
  #53 (permalink)
Elite Member
New York, NY
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Sierra Chart, thinkorswim
Broker/Data: Amp-Rithmic/TT, IB
Favorite Futures: CL, GC, NQ
 
Posts: 569 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 1,797 given, 249 received



itrade2win View Post
NT DOM is more user friendly IMO and it is something that I have used the last 3 years.

Could you please explain how it is more user friendly, or give an example?

Reply With Quote
 
  #54 (permalink)
Elite Member
Georgia, US
 
Futures Experience: None
Platform: Various
Favorite Futures: Various
 
josh's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,897 since Jan 2011
Thanks: 5,143 given, 11,242 received


Futures Operator View Post
With their fast development cycle, have you or others asked SC to fix or improve the issues you have found in these areas? With the feedback we've read on quick updates, I would think they could make some of these simple improvements relatively easily/quickly by now?

Yes, I have, and they have. I've only been trying SC for 11 days, and they have fixed many issues that I identified. Not all, as some of them were not important enough to them. But, quite a few, and compared to the 6 or so releases NT has had in the last 1.5 years which have contained zero fixes or implementations of ideas.


Futures Operator View Post
What has their response been to each of the issues mentioned: DOM aesthetics to be more competitive with the other options like NT, MC, TT etc, general platform aesthetics, ease of usability of the platform, improving chart trading, custom sessions, data storage?

I don't know if I or someone else suggested this first, but I suggested adding depth to the order column--before, it was separate. Within 24-48 hours it was done. I have also suggested changes to coloring possibilities and they seem pretty open to this as well though it is not implemented yet. I found a bug which affected the ability to change a DOM color option which was fixed already (or has been fixed and is awaiting release). I found a problem with the quick quantity buttons which was fixed within 48 hours. In general, their response has been positive, though there are still improvements I would like to see (such as the width of the chart trading lines to be variable). I've been bugging them for only less than 2 weeks so I have to give them some time... compare that with NT's 5 levels of DOM depth which they just can't seem to find time to get around to, in many years of being asked to do this.


Futures Operator View Post
Also, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the ability to create multiple sessions, like crude would want to have?

Yes, for me it's not a big deal, but they currently have a day/evening session option. For an instrument like ES this works fine, but for some such as crude, whose settlement comes hours before trading ends, it would be nice to be able to have more than 2 sessions. However, I like the two-only in the sense that it's easy to say "switch on or off" the evening session.

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to josh for this post:
 
  #55 (permalink)
Elite Member
near Paris, France
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: -
Favorite Futures: -
 
Nicolas11's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,070 since Aug 2011
Thanks: 2,232 given, 1,729 received

@Futures Operator,


Futures Operator View Post
Could you please share your thoughts as to how it compares with MC and why you would never come back to MC?

This is a bit off-topic (since this thread is about "Sierra vs Ninja"), so I'll be brief.

First, I want to clearly state that I have never said and I will never say that Sierre Chart (SC) is superior to MultiCharts (MC) in absolute terms. I think that the comparison is meaningful related to one's needs.

Second, I just talk about "classic" MC. I know nothing about MC .NET.

This being said, I have switched from MC to SC, since:
- I needed robust and built-in market profile, volume profile, delta, footprint, Time & Sales (and more generally the possibility to access easily to bid/ask information and use it in codes).

And I think that, even if I would not use these tools any more, I would keep SC for the following reasons:
- aestheticism of the display of the candlesticks with SC - I have a problem with the display of candlesticks with MC - the bars are sometimes too narrow compared to the space between them - I do not see this problem in any other platform - but do not pay too much attention to it - should be a problem only for me on this planet
- charting capabilities of SC >= to those of MC
- programming possibilities of SC are much better than MC: powerfulness of C++ and nearly full control on the platform and data from code

Once more, this comparison is done according to my needs: discretionary trading + need for specific tools + passion for coding (even if I try to control myself ).

Somebody else could be fond of algo trading and have a completely different opinion. For instance, MC has a solid backtesting module. I know nothing about SC's.

Nicolas

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Nicolas11 for this post:
 
  #56 (permalink)
Elite Member
Georgia, US
 
Futures Experience: None
Platform: Various
Favorite Futures: Various
 
josh's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,897 since Jan 2011
Thanks: 5,143 given, 11,242 received

Would like to add a couple more positives for Sierra.

You can perform mass alterations on large database files in SC. For example, I was using an IQFeed data file that had 1402.25 type formatting, and I needed to change it to 140225 to try CTS. Well, it took about 5 minutes, but using a multiplier it was done and worked flawlessly (was about a 1.7GB file). Also, if I want to alter the volume over a certain period in the data, I can do this.

No custom programming required to produce clean-looking lines for yesterday's high, low, and settlement (not last traded), and today's open, a la cleanly like Fat Tails NT version, without having to add daily bar types to a custom indicator. I used built-in studies, and with some help from @tomgilb (who appears to be the sierra spreadsheet master), it was done pretty quickly. Ninja does not have the flexibility to do this without serious quality (aka fat tails) programming ability.

Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to josh for this post:
 
  #57 (permalink)
Elite Member
New York, NY
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Sierra Chart, thinkorswim
Broker/Data: Amp-Rithmic/TT, IB
Favorite Futures: CL, GC, NQ
 
Posts: 569 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 1,797 given, 249 received


arnie View Post
I find MC much more stable than SC.

For those that are looking at a trading platform and volume profile capabilities my first choice will always be towards SC. If the objective is only a chart platform with volume profile capability my first choice will always be IRT. If their main objective is a trading platform than my first choice will always be MC.

Thank you for clarifying, great points and well explained.

This is the first I've read of stability being mentioned as a negative for SC. Can you please elaborate, does it have stability/reliability issues? This is #1 for me, as I had a terrible past experience with NT6.5 and am still hesitant to NT7 because of it. Any stability/reliability/dependability issues in a trading platform are unacceptable and inexcusable to me.

Why do you say MC if main objective is a trading platform?

Which platform and why, would you suggest for multi timeframe charting with a focus on drawing tools rather than indicators, for discretionary futures trading/execution through DOM and chart trader?

Reply With Quote
 
  #58 (permalink)
Elite Member
New York, NY
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Sierra Chart, thinkorswim
Broker/Data: Amp-Rithmic/TT, IB
Favorite Futures: CL, GC, NQ
 
Posts: 569 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 1,797 given, 249 received


josh View Post
Yes, I have, and they have. I've only been trying SC for 11 days, and they have fixed many issues that I identified. Not all, as some of them were not important enough to them. But, quite a few, and compared to the 6 or so releases NT has had in the last 1.5 years which have contained zero fixes or implementations of ideas.

Yes, for me it's not a big deal, but they currently have a day/evening session option. For an instrument like ES this works fine, but for some such as crude, whose settlement comes hours before trading ends, it would be nice to be able to have more than 2 sessions. However, I like the two-only in the sense that it's easy to say "switch on or off" the evening session.

@josh,

Great job on finding and reporting so many issues in such a short timeframe. I'm not sure if that says SC is a buggy platform, or that you are just a great debugger, lol. Their fix/update/release turnaround is truly impressive though, especially compared to NT's lackluster performance in this area.

Curious, if it were possible to configure it, how would you utilize more than 2 sessions for crude?


Last edited by Futures Operator; August 30th, 2012 at 09:13 PM. Reason: Tagged Josh for question
Reply With Quote
 
  #59 (permalink)
Elite Member
New York, NY
 
Futures Experience: Intermediate
Platform: Sierra Chart, thinkorswim
Broker/Data: Amp-Rithmic/TT, IB
Favorite Futures: CL, GC, NQ
 
Posts: 569 since Nov 2010
Thanks: 1,797 given, 249 received


Nicolas11 View Post
@Futures Operator,
This being said, I have switched from MC to SC, since:
- I needed Time & Sales

Nicolas

Thanks for the comparison. Does MC not have Time & Sales? That seems like an important/simple component to implement in a trading platform/charting solution?

Were you trading/executing with MC as well, and now doing it with SC? How would you compare them in this regard, and how is SC for executing discretionary trades?

Reply With Quote
 
  #60 (permalink)
Elite Member
near Paris, France
 
Futures Experience: Beginner
Platform: -
Favorite Futures: -
 
Nicolas11's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,070 since Aug 2011
Thanks: 2,232 given, 1,729 received


@Futures Operator,

I will stop talking about MC here, since it is off-topic.
I have never placed trades with SC except in SIM mode. So I will let other futures.io (formerly BMT) members talk about execution aspects.

Nicolas

Reply With Quote
The following user says Thank You to Nicolas11 for this post:

Reply



futures io > > > > Sierra vs. Ninja : why I chose .....

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)

Linda Bradford Raschke: Reading The Tape

Elite only

Adam Grimes: TBA

Elite only

NinjaTrader: TBA

January

Ran Aroussi: TBA

Elite only
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ninja Indicator to Ninja Strategy emini_Holy_Grail NinjaTrader Programming 10 March 10th, 2013 12:23 AM
Sierra and its issues... arnie Sierra Chart 6 September 30th, 2012 07:39 AM
Sierra Charts Ninja Trader backup and restore to new computer Angler The Elite Circle 12 August 23rd, 2012 01:13 PM
Switching Fin.Alg TPO Market profile from Ninja 6.5 to ninja 7 MadManmos Trading Reviews and Vendors 19 August 23rd, 2011 09:15 AM
Any Sierra Programmers around? tomb06 Sierra Chart Programming 6 July 13th, 2011 10:38 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Copyright © 2017 by futures io, s.a., Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama, +507 833-9432, info@futures.io
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts
Page generated 2017-12-12 in 0.16 seconds with 20 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.145.51.250