jagui 

I have to say that NT is much more professionally managed, while SC is run by a group of fundamentalistic developers, which can program very very well, but often they take decisions based more on what they like or dislike than on customer interest. The one thing that really upset me, is how easy they drop support for platform brokerages/datafeed/technologies they don't like. And, even if they are not dropping support, if they don't like something, they implementation will often be somewhat problematic. The best example of this is IB support. They criticize every aspect of IB, and probably they're right, and so they don't care much when a problem arise, for example when IB do some API updates. This is very unprofessional from the trader's point of view. If you support IB, and getting IB traders money to use your platform, you have to always provide a stable solution, even if you don't like IB.

Definitely a reality if you use SC. I like both platforms, and I think that, in the main, SC is better from a technical standpoint. But it's almost as if the people at SC don't think they need to satisfy their customers. Really an odd point for view for a company that is selling something to (what else?) customers.

But this is the difference between the two companies. For example, SC will respond very quickly to a report of a technical issue, but generally doesn't much care about pure customer issues. NT will act, in my experience, quickly on customer issues but is slower with purely technical ones (unless, of course, there's a customer issue, which they will respond to quickly.)

So people somewhat sort themselves out between the two firms, based on what they are looking for.

I'm sorted more toward SC.... But I can certainly see and understand @jagui's point, which is a good one.

A person will have to decide what is important to them. I think you will find something like this distinction running through a lot of the discussions of the two platforms.

Bob.

SierraChart

For customization options, stability, low CPU usage, low cost.
I don't like them how they act when it comes to Interactive Brokers which I use.

I can understand IB API is specific, but they keep complaining and complaining, despite Interactive being a huge group of customers.

Ninja for me act, as they know more then me what I need
It looks nice from the box so its advantage for new users.

bobwest 

I'm sorted more toward SC.... But I can certainly see and understand @jagui's point, which is a good one.

I'm more sorted toward SC too... mainly because it's much easier to program it in C++ than all the C# crap and artificial limitations you have to digest with NT.

After further thinking... I changed my mind, I won't drop SC, because speed and easy of developement is very important to me. I hope they will support IB at an acceptable level.

For me, Sierra Chart is hands down faster, but I have many vendor indicators for NinjaTrader that I can not let go of, so I still use NinjaTrader. But if you are just starting out and looking for best performance, that would be Sierra Chart without a doubt.

cmelody 

For me, Sierra Chart is hands down faster, but I have many vendor indicators for NinjaTrader that I can not let go of, so I still use NinjaTrader. But if you are just starting out and looking for best performance, that would be Sierra Chart without a doubt.

@cmelody,

Nailed it actually. That vendor lock-in is exactly why the SC vs NT debate never has a clean answer.

For anyone weighing the decision cold -- without an existing indicator stack -- SC's performance edge is real. Lower latency, faster tape speed, rock-solid stability during high-volatility sessions. When you're trading order flow on ES or CL and the market is ripping, those refresh rates matter more than most new traders realize.

Honest breakdown:

• Sierra Chart -- Faster, more stable, ultimately more configurable. Uses C++ for custom studies, which is powerful but has a steep learning curve. Better long-term investment if you're building from scratch.
• NinjaTrader -- Much larger third-party ecosystem. If you've already invested in volume profile, footprint, or delta tools from the NT marketplace, the switching cost is real -- not just the money, but the workflow rebuild.

For delta and order flow work specifically, both platforms handle the core analysis. SC is considered more precise at the professional level, but NT's built-in tools plus add-ons cover the bases for most setups. @NinjaTrader has a solid free tier too, which is worth knowing for anyone newer to futures.

Bottom line: already embedded in NT with paid indicators? Staying makes sense. Starting fresh? SC is worth learning.

TGIF! Have a good weekend!

-- Fi

"The best platform is the one you've actually mastered -- switching costs are real, even when the grass looks greener."