Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Basically you are not permitted to download MCDT until you "Recommend"/Like the page on Facebook. I don't have, nor want, a Facebook login and it is a requirement to have a login to use the button. You cannot just click the button and not login to Facebook, it still will not let you proceed to Download until you have completed the "Recommend".
Yes I've run across one or two sites like that myself. I just close the site. Even if I had Facebook, I would never allow that. But I don't have or want Facebook, so no worries
That will drive away potential customers who until now would start off using the DT edition before licensing.. I am aware many people are using facebook, but i personally know a lot of people in multicharts target audience who do not use facebook.. I hope they change this decision.
I am in the process of deciding whether or not to switch to MC. I am close to doing so, but reading some of the posts in this and related threads raise some questions.
1. I assume the facebook requirement is for the free version? (I also don't have nor want a facebook acct)
2. Backtesting. The main motivation for me to make the move to MC is NT's backtesting flaws. Mike, I watched your video comparing the two a year or so ago. Maybe I am naive, but comparing the two for results is interesting and finding the cause is worthwhile, but only to the extent it helps the user determine how each may differ from a live trading control model for the same strategy and time period. What I mean by that is I want to know how acurately a backtest runs a strategy on historic data compared to what one would expect to see if that strategy was run live during that same time period. (please don't confuse what I am saying with an expectation that backtest results should reflect future performance of a strategy) I see no reason why a backtest shouldn't be expected to test a strategy against the market for a given timeframe with accuracy very close to llive trading. (with expected variations due to data issues, broker execution etc.) But the point is that the backtest program should be able run the historic data tick-by-tick and run the strategy against that data in a way that a user could see if the program works as intended and also see how well the strategy would perform if it had been run for the test period. NT's shortcomings in that regard are shocking. During a conversation with MC, it was described as follows (paraphrase): NT tests your strategy against a chart that has already been created by the program; MC actually 'trades' your strategy using the historic data as a stream. In essence streaming the data in correct order to the strategy model without an ability to 'look forward' the way NT does.
This was the clincher for me. MC recognizes why we backtest. NT apparently does not.
That said, has anyone compared the mechanics of how their strategy tested vs. how the live trading during the same time period would have traded? To me that comparison to live trading or even a market replay is much more critical than comparing the two to each other to see how close you can get them to parity.
3. I assume that MC has some equivalent to NT's ATM discretionary trading from the charts. Is that true? Sounds like MC was way behind as of a year ago.
4. I am also VERY concerned about the documentation. Software companies in general seem pretty deficient when it comes to clear documentation. To hear MC may be so far behind in current documentation may be all I need to know.
If your interest is primarily backtesting, there are better options beyond MC and NT. If your interest is primarily in trading, charting and order execution, NinjaTrader is hard to beat. Good luck.
I used Ninja upto version 6 and gave up waiting for the release version 7.
I switched to MC 5 for the backtesting capabilities. Used MC 6 for automated trading and have since switched to version 7. Version 7 was very resource hungary and crashed, 7.2 is enormously better.
Support from MC is good, software development quality is good. The release schedules are met or exceeded.
Right now, my biggest grievance with MC is the lack of support for custom bar types.
Any feedback from people who switched from Ninja or MultiCharts to Sierra Charts?
I haven't kept up with Sierra Charts and I know this is not the purpose of thread, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to me to start another called "Ninja vs. MultiCharts Vs. Sierra Charts" - so please accept my apologies.
I used Sierra before switching to NT. For stability there is no comparison; Sierra wins hands down. I dont think it ever crashed on me for the year that I used it.
At the time, its been at least a year ago, there was very little you could do with Sierra as far as custom indicators go. There were a few downloads but nothing like NT.
I messed around with strategies in Sierra and it was easier from the standpoint if you understood excel you could create a simple strategy. But there is really no comparison to the power of NT coding engine.
When you opened up Sierra, it felt solid and well put together. NT feels....well, fragile when you open it.. like it never got out of beta development; one wrong click and the whole thing collapses.
For charting, again Sierra rocks.. The graphic interface was more pleasing to the eyes.. I like how the bars were painted on the screen. They looked to be the right size for the zoom you were in.
Bottom line: If all I was doing was charting I would be using Sierra. If you want custom indicators and strategies you can program down to smallest detail then NT is what you should use. Just be aware of NT stability issues.
I tried Multi Charts for 2 days.. I could never get it to hook up to MBT. It was way too complicated. Or at least I perceived it to be way to complicated.
I have test-driven NT more than once, and traded with MCDT live a few times (and still occasionally do). I found MCDT to be satisfactory & adequate - if nothing better were available. I failed, however to see the lustre in NT, though. I guess people just like its catchy name & believe they must be getting more if they are paying more. It mystifies me. I have always found NT inflexible and unreliable in comparison to MC or Sierra Charts.
As for my personal preference, there's just nothing out there as good as Sierra Charts (not in the price bracket we're talking about here, anyways). It's simple, clean, fast, stable, and very, very powerful.
In fact, I personally believe that Sierra is vastly more powerful than the typical user understands. You have to do some poking around on your own to really figure out some of the stuff it can do. If you do, it will be worth it.
Absent Sierra, though, I'd rather pay for Multicharts than get Ninja for free.