Login Page - Create Account

Support Board


Date/Time: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 20:44:53 +0000



[Sticky] [Locked] - Sierra Chart Does Not Recommend CQG!

[2019-10-18 07:51:32]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/CQGTrading.php

Now we have a new order routing service which is documented here:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SierraChartOrderRoutingServiceWithData.php

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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/LicenseAgreement.php#ExplanationOfNoLiability

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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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
[2020-01-13 16:04:46]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
We have another reported trading incident with CQG where someone is asking for money. In this case they lost the connection to CQG, which caused the target and stop orders, to not be sent. There is not support for server-side bracket orders with CQG because they do not work properly with CQG.

Since CQG does not have proper support for server-side bracket orders we recommend using this service:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SierraChartOrderRoutingServiceWithData.php

This is what the user told us:
I did what i'm supposed to do relying on your platform knowing that you're a company that values it's credibility or this what I thought!
Now you can see why it is we dislike CQG. If you are trading CME markets, we are 100% not recommending CQG at all. We discourage its use.
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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 21:13:13
[2020-01-13 16:29:49]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
Post #1 has been updated with our current view of the TT order routing service. It has proven to be very reliable now for many months. It solves CQG connectivity problems also solves the problem of not having server-side bracket order support when using CQG. Server-side bracket orders are supported when using the TT based Sierra Chart order routing service.
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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 16:31:06
[2020-01-14 18:30:56]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
Further to this, the CQG Web API server was down for 25 minutes earlier this morning. We do not understand why they do not have redundancy with multiple servers and/or network connectivity. If this exists, certainly it was not available during this time.
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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: 2020-01-14 18:45:38
[2020-01-15 23:23:56]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
Another reason we dislike CQG. We just got this from them:

Microsoft and CQG are Stopping Support of Windows 7
Microsoft is retiring Windows 7 in January 2020. Once retired, Microsoft will no longer provide operating system updates. We are asking that all customers upgrade to Windows 10 to stay secure. For more information visit microsoft.com
Windows 10 is trash, and represents a clear and definite deterioration of the Windows operating system.

The fact that they are affiliating themselves with Microsoft and this damn decision to drop support for Windows 7, their best operating system really just tells us that CQG does not recognize quality and stability.

Update: Reaffirming what we said above.
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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: 2020-06-12 21:22:37
[2020-06-12 21:19:17]
Sierra Chart Engineering - Posts: 87483 | Ending Date: 2021-04-05
We are bringing this back up to the top of the board because we have another reported issue with CQG from a user that came through a ticket, where CQG provided an incorrect fill price for a treasury futures contract, and there was also a position reporting issue. These are not Sierra Chart problems but these problems relate to the CQG service itself.

We just want to go into a brief technical discussion about the "incorrect fill price":
More specifically what likely happened is that the "raw integer" price failed to get adjusted to the true price due to an issue with the security definition data from CQG. This is something we have discussed with CQG. We think it relates to a problem in one of the protocol buffer messages And we did do a small code change to work around it and we also want to update to the latest protocol buffer Definition files from CQG but we have difficulty with those.

Update: We had a further look into this, and there is a field called correct_price_scale in the contract metadata from CQG. The pricing problem relates to this. When users were getting incorrect market data that was not adjusted using this price scale variable, it was because we were checking to see if that variable was set using a Google protocol buffer library function. CQG says that this variable is always set and there is no need to check if it is set. So we took that check out which should not have failed anyway but apparently was. And we also see that check exists for order prices as well so we are taking that out for order/trading prices and that will be out in version 2122.

We do hear about CQG Trade Position Quantity reporting problems from time to time, they are rare but they do happen. You should then see the correct position usually by reconnecting to the data feed. The positions might also be corrected by selecting Trade >> Refresh Trade Data from Service but we would have to see if that would have an effect in the case of CQG.

We recommend that users use the Sierra Chart order routing service if they are trading the CME group of exchanges:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SierraChartOrderRoutingServiceWithData.php

Another problem we have with CQG is the latest protocol buffer definition files do not even compile properly in our Visual C++ project without generating errors that we have never seen before. And we know this is not very descriptive because we do not want to go into technical details but the ultimate point we are trying to make is the CQG Web API protocol definition files have become far too large and complex.

If you are trading the CME group of markets we simply do not recommend using CQG and we recommend the Sierra Chart order routing service instead:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?page=doc/SierraChartOrderRoutingServiceWithData.php

We have invested a lot in the service, and we have multiple servers for redundancy, and also use a direct Cross Connect to TT:
https://www.sierrachart.com/SupportBoard.php?ThreadID=51375

The Sierra Chart order routing service would not be affected by incorrect fill prices because there is no price translation required. In many cases, but not in the case of treasury futures there is a price multiplier used but this is not something which leads to any type of problem. If the price multiplier is not set correctly on the Sierra Chart side, then you just simply correct it. There would not be incorrectly logged fill price because there is never any translation of the prices.



And finally, the reason why it is we are working towards a unified model of order routing is in order to provide a high-quality level of service and reliability for our user base. It makes completely no sense for us to be supporting so many different services. This is just simply downright inefficient and illogical.

And it is also so inefficient and illogical that all of our competitors are doing the same dumb thing. Does it make sense that bookmap and Jigsaw, and others are integrating to all these different services with all these different problems and all these different APIs. No, it is extremely inefficient and illogical. This is why we established the DTC Protocol:
https://www.dtcprotocol.org/

Also, we did discuss with jigsaw about interfacing to the DTC protocol server.
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:
https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation

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: 2020-06-14 23:48:45

To post a message in this thread, you need to login with your Sierra Chart account:

Login

Login Page - Create Account