A $1,000 / month for TickZOOM seems like a scam, much less a working product...Has anyone even gotten a working copy of their beta?Also, can you add AmiBroker to this chart?Thanks,Michael
I can hardly believe they also have the ordasity to use also say it is Open Source, yet charge like a wounded bull for the product, with also using a Free Website Wiki as a homepage, What a JOKE~!
About AMIBroker, we simply need someone who knows AMIBroker well to answer the facts and we can add it at the tickzoom site.Institutional customers never consider AMIBRoker which is why it's not on the list above. At least non every requested a comparison from one. In contrast all the platforms on the comparison are used by fund managers of varying sizes.Anyway, here's perhaps some assistance in comparing between TickZoom and AMIBroker.Most people ask about performance comparison with AMIBroker.While there aren't any side-by-side benchmarks, here are some facts that may help.1. AMIBroker doesn't natively support ticks. It treats a tick as a bar and so open/high/low/close are actually fields like bid/ask/last, etc. That creates some major limitations and rules it out for institutions. TickZoom handles ticks naturally and extremely fast. So it wins hands down at tick processing.2. AMIBroker uses very fast single-thread technology so it's probably comparable in performance to TickZOOM on a single CPU.3. However, AMIBroker continues to only use a single CPU on multi-core machines for either historical testing, real time processing of data, or optimization. In contrast, TickZOOM very smoothly utilizes multi-cores for all three. Plus it has some advanced parallel features which often multiply the effect of multi-cores. So a 4 core cam run your optimization more than 4 times faster for optimizations.Other than that, you'll generally find that TickZoom was built ground up for fully automated trading so it will constantly win in any automated trading capability comparison. But tickzoom as ZERO ability to enter or trade manually although there's some discussion for adding that later.AMIBroker support for auto trading was added later so it tends to excel in manual trading and assited automation.
This is Wayne, owner of TickZoom.TickZoom is waiting to release any kind of community or FREEversion until the end of beta. Beta will officially end aroundSeptember 1, 2010,Also, the $1,000/month and $2,000/month are institutional prices.Currently, during beta, only intitutional customers are acceptedto assist with beta testing. You may be surpised companies paythat much for a system still in beta. That itself tells you thatTickZoom has powerful features for automated trading that areimpossible to find in any other platform.After that their will probably be a completely FREE communityversion that allows both testing and trading without cost but haslimited support from TickZoom. For any questions, users will goto public sites like stackoverflow.comThe free version would be limited to only 4 symbols.Paid support with an SLA will be available as an add-on at somethingmore affordable for individuals. There will be graduated pricesgoing up from there for fewer limitations.There might be another free version depending on demand whichallows unlimited symbols but only 4 strategy instances.This will benefit "scanner" type strategies.Hope this answers questions about pricing.Sincerely,WayneAgain, this is Wayne, owner of TickZoom.The reason AMIBroker never appears in comparisons is becausenone of the beta users of TickZoom or myself every used AMIBroker.Still, the most frequently asked question for comparison is performance. Here are some facts that can help with that.1. AMIBroker uses very fast code for handling data using a singleCPU. The two platforms will be very near in performance on a singleCPU machine. That's based on anecdotal discussion with others whouse TickZoom--not a benchmark.2. AMIBroker never benefits from multi-core CPUs for historical testing, optimization, but apparently it does use multithreads some for real time data handling. In contrast, TickZoom fully support multi-core CPUs so if your optimization takes 4 minutes on a single-core it will run more than 4 times faster on a quad-core. Why "more than 4 times"? TickZOOM has some advanced features of optimization that often multiply the effect of multi-core CPUs. This also makes TickZoom able to handle far more symbols in real time processing (thousands) compared to AMIBroker.3. TickZoom has native support for raw ticks as well as bar from with strategies and indicators. AMIBroker in contrast treats ticks are bars so that open/high/low/close represent fields like bid/ask/last, etc. That creates limitations. Since TickZoom is extremely fast at over 250,000 ticks per second on a single core 32 bit machine (faster on 64 bit) then it wins hands-down to AMIBroker for ticks. 4. TickZoom support 64 bit for optimization and historical and so does AMIBroker so this improves perfomance. During beta TZ was identified to have an issue with 64 bit for real time processing but that will be fixed prior to end of beta. Sincerely,Wayne
I think NextGen or something is about $10k for ownership, and FutureScalper is about $1500 per year with genuinely new technology. Prices vary greatly. Charles.
AmiBroker can do everything and I know many funds using the technology, TickZoom does not include AB on this list because they know well that their package is inferior and basically a scam to suck in uninformed clients.
Post a Comment
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
High Probability Trading. Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com