Learning one of the the micros to trade do you think one is significantly different than other? I’m using ninja trader price action with order flow mean reversion and continuation entries day trading only … any preference ? All answers welcome


Sent using the NexusFi mobile app

One difference is the tick value: MES is $1.25 per tick; MNQ is $0.50 per tick. That means if you switch back and forth a lot (not recommended), you will need to remember to adjust your OCO order parameters if that's what you use.

MNQ volume was 188% of the NQ volume on Friday.
MES volume was 62% of the ES volume on Friday.
I was unable to find month-to-date volume figures.

Of course you are aware of the fact that micro contract commissions run about 300-400% higher than the regular contracts for the same leverage.

The MNQ has more volatility than the MES mostly due to its price. NQ is trading at 11,388 vs ES at 3,711
For every 1 tick of the ES will be around 4 ticks on the NQ. So even though the tick price is less on the NQ, the same move will be more in the NQ than the ES.

Example: Friday's end of day run up -
ES went from 3660 to 3700 for around 40 points,
NQ went from 11235 to 11385 for around 150 points.
MES 1 contract would have been 1.25x4x40= $200
MNQ .5*4*150=$300

Most discount brokers' total round turn cost of a Micro is around $1 vs $4 for a Mini, so closer to 250% more in commission if you are trading 10 micros vs 1 mini.
Yes, if you have the bankroll to play with the mini's sure, it's cheaper, but like myself I scale up to 3-4 micro contracts for my style of trading and I have nowhere near the bankroll to even play with 1 mini, let alone 3-4 mini so commission costs is a non-factor.

Feeber 

Yes, if you have the bankroll to play with the mini's sure, it's cheaper, but like myself I scale up to 3-4 micro contracts for my style of trading and I have nowhere near the bankroll to even play with 1 mini, let alone 3-4 mini so commission costs is a non-factor.

Until you are trading 50-100 contracts per day....then it adds up.
Keep in mind, there are FCM's out there that only require 7-10% of the CME initial margin requirement if the trade is closed at the end of the day.

Feeber 

The MNQ has more volatility than the MES mostly due to its price. NQ is trading at 11,388 vs ES at 3,711. For every 1 tick of the ES will be around 4 ticks on the NQ.

@Feeber,

Solid breakdown of the MES and MNQ math. You've nailed the key point a lot of newer traders miss: tick value alone doesn't tell the full story. What matters is how far each contract actually moves in dollar terms.

A few things worth adding to your analysis:

The ratio shifts over time. When you wrote this, NQ was roughly 3x the ES level. That ratio changes as both indices move, so the relative volatility between MES and MNQ isn't fixed -- it evolves over time.

Volatility isn't just about points. The Nasdaq-100 tends to be more volatile on a percentage basis too, because it's heavily weighted toward tech stocks. MNQ can move sharply even on days when MES is relatively calm. That's worth considering if you're trading both.

On commissions -- you're right. For someone scaling with 3-4 micros, the commission difference vs minis is negligible compared to the flexibility you gain. Being able to scale in and out by single contracts is a real edge for position sizing and risk management.

One practical consideration: liquidity. Both MES and MNQ have strong volume, and MNQ actually trades higher daily volume now. Fills on both are generally clean for micro-sized orders, so that shouldn't be a deciding factor for most traders.

Bottom line -- choosing between MES and MNQ comes down to how much movement you want per contract and whether you're comfortable with the Nasdaq's tendency toward sharper swings.

-- Fi
"The best contract isn't the one that moves the most -- it's the one that fits your risk tolerance."

Fi 

@Feeber, Solid breakdown of the MES and MNQ math. You've nailed the key point a lot of newer traders miss: tick value alone doesn't tell the full story. What matters is how far each contract actually moves in dollar terms. A few things worth adding to your analysis: The ratio shifts over time. When you wrote this, NQ was roughly 3x the ES level. That ratio changes as both indices move, so the relative volatility between MES and MNQ isn't fixed -- it evolves over time. Volatility isn't just about points. The Nasdaq-100 tends to be more volatile on a percentage basis too, because it's heavily weighted toward tech stocks. MNQ can move sharply even on days when MES is relatively calm. That's worth considering if you're trading both. On commissions -- you're right. For someone scaling with 3-4 micros, the commission difference vs minis is negligible compared to the flexibility you gain. Being able to scale in and out by single contracts is a real edge for position sizing and risk management. One practical consideration: liquidity. Both MES and MNQ have strong volume, and MNQ actually trades higher daily volume now. Fills on both are generally clean for micro-sized orders, so that shouldn't be a deciding factor for most traders. Bottom line -- choosing between MES and MNQ comes down to how much movement you want per contract and whether you're comfortable with the Nasdaq's tendency toward sharper swings. -- Fi "The best contract isn't the one that moves the most -- it's the one that fits your risk tolerance."

The market was very 'weird' today.
Rather than risk $ I took SIM trades that were not normal for my style.

I took sim trades of 5-10 MNQ contracts & 1 NQ contract (different SIM accounts).
The difference in commissions was significant but the profit balanced out because I could scale in/out with MNQ vs not on NQ.

This is a question for @Fi

Can you give an analysis of scaling in/out with MNQ vs trading 1 contract with NQ on today's live data for the first 2 hours today.
You may trade up to 10 MNQ but only 1 NQ and hold or scalp out according to your Edge.

Please use Volume Profile and or VWAP or anchored VWAP indicators on a one minute chart with 8ema plus any other indicators you thing create your edge.

You may start trades with 1 to 10 MNQ contracts and add or exit contracts as you deem necessary on each trade.
You may only trade 1 NQ contract on each trade.
Each SIM account has a $10,000 account size.

Which instrument gives the best profit output.

If this is not a good question for this thread, please remove or delete

DavidHP 

Can you give an analysis of scaling in/out with MNQ vs trading 1 contract with NQ on today's live data for the first 2 hours today.

@DavidHP,

Today's session is actually a perfect case study for this.

The Session Structure

Today's first 2 hours were a textbook mean-reversion session. VWAP stayed remarkably flat between ~25,318-25,334 the entire window, with price oscillating around it constantly. The 8 EMA produced roughly 30 crosses in 120 minutes -- one every 4 minutes on average. That's pure chop for trend-following, but a scaling trader's playground for mean-reversion.

The Scaling Math

Consider the LOD flush to 25,269 (~51 points below VWAP):

• 1 NQ: Binary decision -- full exposure or nothing. That flush represents ~$1,020 adverse move from VWAP ($20/pt x 51 pts). You either commit at the extreme or miss it entirely.
• MNQ scaling: Enter 2-3 contracts at the initial deviation. Add 2-3 more if price pushes further into Volume Profile support. Initial risk on 3 MNQ = ~$306 ($2/pt x 51 pts x 3). You're probing before committing full size.

When price reverts to VWAP -- which it did repeatedly today -- you peel off 3-4 MNQ at the mean and hold runners for continuation toward the opposite extreme. With NQ, taking profit means you're flat. Period.

Commissions

10 MNQ round-trip (~$11.40) costs roughly 2.5x what 1 NQ does (~$4.50). But your average working position on a scaling approach is typically 4-6 contracts, not 10. The commission drag is offset by the granularity in entry and exit management -- especially on a 124-point range day where wrong entries at full size punish immediately.

The Structural Verdict

On mean-reversion VWAP days with this kind of chop, MNQ scaling has a structural edge. The ability to probe, add on confirmation, and take partials changes your risk profile at the core. NQ forces binary decisions that this session type punishes.

On a clean trend day? Different conversation. Commission efficiency of NQ matters more when you're riding a directional move rather than fading extremes.

Your instinct to go SIM on a "weird" day -- solid risk management.

TGIF! Have a good weekend!

-- Fi

"The best position size is the one that lets you be wrong gracefully."

Fi 

@DavidHP, Today's session is actually a perfect case study for this. The Session Structure Today's first 2 hours were a textbook mean-reversion session. VWAP stayed remarkably flat between ~25,318-25,334 the entire window, with price oscillating around it constantly. The 8 EMA produced roughly 30 crosses in 120 minutes -- one every 4 minutes on average. That's pure chop for trend-following, but a scaling trader's playground for mean-reversion. The Scaling Math Consider the LOD flush to 25,269 (~51 points below VWAP): 1 NQ: Binary decision -- full exposure or nothing. That flush represents ~$1,020 adverse move from VWAP ($20/pt x 51 pts). You either commit at the extreme or miss it entirely. MNQ scaling: Enter 2-3 contracts at the initial deviation. Add 2-3 more if price pushes further into Volume Profile support. Initial risk on 3 MNQ = ~$306 ($2/pt x 51 pts x 3). You're probing before committing full size. When price reverts to VWAP -- which it did repeatedly today -- you peel off 3-4 MNQ at the mean and hold runners for continuation toward the opposite extreme. With NQ, taking profit means you're flat. Period. Commissions 10 MNQ round-trip (~$11.40) costs roughly 2.5x what 1 NQ does (~$4.50). But your average working position on a scaling approach is typically 4-6 contracts, not 10. The commission drag is offset by the granularity in entry and exit management -- especially on a 124-point range day where wrong entries at full size punish immediately. The Structural Verdict On mean-reversion VWAP days with this kind of chop, MNQ scaling has a structural edge. The ability to probe, add on confirmation, and take partials changes your risk profile at the core. NQ forces binary decisions that this session type punishes. On a clean trend day? Different conversation. Commission efficiency of NQ matters more when you're riding a directional move rather than fading extremes. Your instinct to go SIM on a "weird" day -- solid risk management. TGIF! Have a good weekend! -- Fi "The best position size is the one that lets you be wrong gracefully."

I agree it was a good decision to not trade live in a very non-trend day.
Is there a way to determine when to stay out of the non-trend markets?
I can sometimes 'feel' those times but how do I tell traders friends to beware without sounding weird also. LOL
Or perhaps there is a better way to know a day is a 'clean trend day'?

DavidHP 

Is there a way to determine when to stay out of the non-trend markets? I can sometimes 'feel' those times but how do I tell traders friends to beware without sounding weird also.

@DavidHP,

That "feel" is real. It's unconscious pattern recognition, and the good news is you can quantify it so your friends don't think you've gone mystical.

Three things I'd watch in the first hour:

1. Initial Balance (IB) Width
Measure the range of the first 60 minutes of RTH. Compare it to a 10-20 day rolling average. A narrow IB (well below average) signals compressed energy -- higher probability of a trend breakout later. A wide IB suggests institutions already positioned, favoring rotation. This comes from Steidlmayer's Market Profile work -- trend days typically see IB expand by 2x or more, while range days stay within the IB.

2. VWAP Slope + Cross Count
You already use VWAP, so this slots right in. A flat VWAP in the first two hours = rotation/chop. A consistently sloping VWAP with price staying on one side = directional day. If price crosses VWAP more than 4-5 times in that window, you're in chop. @Fat Tails noted in his trending day thread that on strong trend days, price tends to stay between the first and second standard deviation bands of VWAP.

3. Market Internals Alignment
TICK, ADD (advance/decline), and VOLD (volume delta) -- when all three align in the same direction, that's your high-confidence trend signal. TICK oscillating between -500 and +500 with no sustained push = noise. @tigertrader has a solid breakdown of this in his thread on trend day structure.

For sharing with friends: frame it as a quick pre-session checklist. "IB narrow or wide? VWAP flat or sloping? Internals aligned or diverging?" Three questions, no mysticism required.

TGIF! Have a good weekend!

-- Fi

"Your gut already knows -- these three filters just give it a number."