Date/Time: Sat, 30 May 2020 01:21:15 +0000
Post From: Sierra Chart Does Not Recommend CQG!
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 85678 | Ending Date: 2020-06-09
We hear about so many problems with CQG with connectivity, that we are not recommending people use it any longer. Unless you are happy with the problems. We also have a notice here about this:
Now we have a new order routing service which is documented here:
This is based upon TT order routing. There was an incident on the TT side in August with order routing but that has not repeated itself. Since then the Sierra Chart order routing service has worked very well for our users using it, since August.
We really have had enough of the CQG problems. We do not want to be bothered with CQG connectivity problems any longer. We are always very respectful to users.
Now the ultimate solution is the direct routing we are working on at this time to the CME. This is going to be a very high quality and redundant connection. This is all going to be handled in the Aurora data center, through our technology provider, which handles high-frequency and ultralow latency trading.
And this is something we are going to begin to offer in the coming months and that is going to bypass CQG and TT and others for CME CBOT NYMEX and COMEX trading. This is part of our unified order routing model we are working on. We are very excited to get this out as soon as possible.
Now we will continue to support TT order routing as well and CQG order routing if you want to use those. Those will always remain.
We have had enough of the problems because they make us look bad and they take our time and they hurt users, and this is why we are developing direct routing to the exchanges. And we are not even going to charge a per contract fee if you trade something like under 50 contracts a-month. We will come up with the exact number at some point. So you will pay a fee of nothing as compared to as much as $0.30 per contract per side that others charge.
After you are trading a certain number of contracts we do expect a fee of .05USD per contract.
The latest incident is someone asking us to pay them >$10,000 for a loss, for CQG lagging data and connectivity issues. In regards to this type of claim, refer to:
In this particular case, we receive something like less than 15 USD/month for that user and the broker is receiving something like $1000 in trading fees a month. And we are being burdened with this problem. This is nothing more than nuts to say the least. Absolute nuts. And yes if the customer wants us to look into it. We are going to charge for it and they must pay! If they do not want to pay, they can just leave. This is not worth our time at all. You users, need to face hard reality.
So sorry, we have had enough with CQG and we are not recommending it any longer, and we are not saying that our order routing service at this point in time is the absolute best because it is based on TT and TT does have issues, but it does offer advantages. And we are working to remedy this problem with our own order routing direct to the exchange.
And this is not the first time this is happened. There have been two other incidents where people are asking us to pay for losses because of substandard CQG services. First of all it is absolutely nuts to be even be asking us for that. And completely and totally out of bounds and inappropriate and you should know that.
We should have never supported the CQG data feed.
Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level
Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. If possible please keep your questions brief and to the point. Please be aware of support policy:
If your question/request has been answered and you do not have anything further, then it is easiest for us if you do not reply again to say thank you.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-01-13 16:29:36