Opened a new account with Optimus Futures (thanks Matt!) and trying to decide on a data feed. For use with Sierra. What is the best data feed especially for use with order flow reading on the DOM?

Any help and insight most definitely appreciated...

commtrd 

Opened a new account with Optimus Futures (thanks Matt!) and trying to decide on a data feed. For use with Sierra. What is the best data feed especially for use with order flow reading on the DOM? Any help and insight most definitely appreciated...

You welcome and thank you for your business.
We can try both and you can decide what is best for your connectivity and execution.

Others can give you what has worked best for them. We are data neutral and will do whatever is best for you.

Thanks,
Matt Z
Optimus Futures

There is a substantial risk of loss in futures trading. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

I've tried both and they both seemed very good. My main reason for going with CQG was the RT costs. With my broker, CQG is $.20 round trip and Rithmic is $.50 round trip.

I'm not profitable yet (still 'in search of' the best method and discipline) so even $.30 per contract means a lot to me.

Hopefully we'll get a real trader to give you a better opinion

HTH,

LDog

I've used both and prefer the Rithmic feed over CQG as it gives much better depth on the DOM.

commtrd 

Opened a new account with Optimus Futures (thanks Matt!) and trying to decide on a data feed. For use with Sierra. What is the best data feed especially for use with order flow reading on the DOM? Any help and insight most definitely appreciated...

I use Sierra Chart's own data-feed. It works great. My logic, as a non-technical person, is as simple as saying it appears to be one less thing for me to worry about. If I a guy leases me a Rolls Royce then tells me that he's developed gas made specifically for the car he's leasing me, then I'm thinking I'll pay that guy flat-fee $35/month to know I'm leasing the car and the gas from the same guy. I suppose another vendor could say "my gas works in that car" and that might be true, but it won't be me coming on some bulletin board when there's a hiccup and two vendors blame each other. The SC data-feed is a flat fee for peace of mind/fast tick-by-tick data. More important to me, than the monthly fee for SC'a data-feed, is the per-trade cost. Some gas suppliers don't charge a monthly fee but their per trade costs aren't cheap. I use the Advanced Lower Cost Connection at CTS. It costs $0.10 per side or $0.20 per round-trip. That's a lot lower than CTS' regular $0.50 per side/$1.00 RT, and also lower than Rithmic from what I hear. The SC Advanced Lower Cost Connection at CTS is available at Optimus Futures if you're with one of their FCMs that has a relationship with CTS.

commtrd 

Opened a new account with Optimus Futures (thanks Matt!) and trying to decide on a data feed. For use with Sierra. What is the best data feed especially for use with order flow reading on the DOM? Any help and insight most definitely appreciated...

@commtrd,

Great question, and congrats on getting set up with Optimus. The CQG vs Rithmic data feed decision is one that comes up frequently, and there's no universal "best" - it depends on your specific workflow.

For order flow reading on the DOM specifically:

Both LDog and CenFlo touched on key differences above. When comparing CQG data feed vs Rithmic, here's what matters for DOM traders:

Rithmic advantages:

• Supports CME Market-By-Order (MBO) data with full order add/change/cancel events
• Minimal tick conflation - you see every update
• Exchange sequence numbers and timestamps for queue position analysis
• Generally considered the "raw" feed for serious DOM work

CQG advantages:

• Rock-solid stability - very much "set it and forget it"
• Better historical data and backfill for charting
• Lower per-side routing costs (typically $0.10-0.30 vs $0.25-0.45 for Rithmic)
• Broader platform support and consistent ops

The practical reality:

For volume profile and standard order flow tools (footprints, delta, cumulative delta), both the Rithmic data feed vs CQG comparison is essentially a wash - you'll get excellent data either way. Both provide 10 levels of depth (the CME limit) and clean tick data.

Where Rithmic pulls ahead is if you're doing serious queue position analysis, iceberg detection, or need MBO-level granularity for absorption studies. If that's your focus, Rithmic is worth the slightly higher cost.

For most discretionary traders doing DOM reading with Sierra Chart, CQG is the simpler choice with fewer configuration headaches. CenFlo's point about "better depth on the DOM" likely refers to the unfiltered nature of Rithmic's stream rather than actual additional levels.

My suggestion: Since Matt at Optimus offered to let you try both, take him up on it. Run each for a week during different market conditions. You'll quickly feel which one fits your style. Many traders find the CQG vs Rithmic data feed difference negligible in practice - your ISP path and Sierra's update settings often matter more than the raw feed.

What specific order flow tools are you planning to use? That might help narrow the recommendation.

-- Fi
"The best edge is the one you can actually execute."