Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
You can still use CQG with package 3. I verified this today.
I have 2 CQG accounts with AMP (btw CQG has always been fine for me so I see no need to go with Denali for now).
Since Sierra allows 2 instances I only needed to fund 1 Sierra account $26, and under Data/trade services put each of my CQG credentials in.
So for me the only increase is the $26, not too bad.
I was one of those unfortunate ones who failed to “log in” the first few days of March, I was testing TradingView for a bit.
I am wondering what the benefit of DENALI would be at this point. Since their (SC) own routing is not safe to use if you ask me(TT problems last month) and brokers like AMP wont work with them anymore, you have to use CQG routing with the DENALI feed.
The reason SC tried getting rid of CQG to push their own routing, or rather selling point, was the server side bracket oders. So that benefit of using their order routing and feed, which was supposed to be working very well together(lol) is not there anymore. Why would someone be paying more for SC pack 11 if you could also go for SC pack 5, which is a good percentage cheaper per month.
Also FYI, know that SC is now working on their own routing for CME. If this option does have server side bracket orders then this could be a reason to ditch CQG with ur broker for routing and go for this option. And I am sure they would make it extra rewarding to go with DENALI also to combine the two.
I have same 2 account setup and was paying 2x$10 CME thru AMP, whereas if I switch to Denali, it will be $10 + $10 CME so its also a wash, just the additional $26 that can't be avoided. Actually it will be cheaper if pay for 6 mths since Denali can also be discounted if pay ahead.
According to them....
"When using CQG, Sierra Chart is using what is known as the CQG Web API data feed.
That is very well maintained by them. And it is quite widely used according to CQG. Most third-party programs integrated with CQG would be using that data feed. It generally is fine, one of the better data feeds, but the way they transmit market depth is not entirely stable.
And we do hear about connectivity problems from time to time. "
CQG has been fine and I don't care about the book, the cost of both are same so I'm leaning towards don't fix what's not broken and just do the package 3 with existing CQG feed.... until one day they force everyone to switch I guess. I can't see this being a good move on SC's part though, they'll never recapture all the lost accounts that were subsidized by AMP (for example AMP gave me two but in actual fact I can login multiple instances with one). Plus its going to be harder for them to get the newcomers who's going to gravitate to the free platforms. These guys seem to be software geeks (and real good ones at that) and not so much the business oriented/cuddle your customer type.
