“Gut: Die Plattform bietet alles, was ich zum sicheren Trading benötige. TV ist einfach und intuitiv zu bedienen. Die Tools zur Strukturierung der Charts sind mannigfaltig, ebenso die Indikatoren.
Weniger gut: Ich habe immer wieder einige Fehlfunktionen, die ich nicht beseitigen kann: Z.B. möchte ich bei Öffnung von mehreren Fenstern die dort gezeigten Charts von einander entkoppelt. Das heißt, ich möchte nicht, dass sich die in Fenster 1 und 2 gezeigten Charts (z.B. MNQ 15m + MNQ 60m) verschieben, wenn ich den in Fenster 3 gezeigten Chart (z.B. MNQ 1m) verschiebe (zoom). Eine zweite Fehlfunktion tritt auch bei der Verwendung mehrerer Fenster auf: Wenn ich z.B. den 1m Chart von MNQ verschoben habe und dann auf das Pop-Up-Tool zum Zurückspringen (kreisförmiger Pfeil am unteren Rand des Charts) klicke, sollte der Chart an die aktuelle Preisposition zurück springen. Das passiert aber nicht. Statt dessen "klappt der Chart zusammen". D.h., ich sehe nur noch einen Strich in der Mitte des Fensters und muss dann sowohl die Zeit- als auch die Preis-Achse mühsam wieder auseinanderschieben, um die Kerzen wieder erkennen zu können.
Diese Fehlfunktionen betreffen jedoch nur die Darstellung der Charts und nicht mein Trading.”
“Comparing TradingView to Ninja Trader:
Ninja Trader is the Rolls Royce. But they act like it too, on all their wiring fees, commissions, and auto liquidation fees.
TradingView is less user friendly.
For example
1. their buy button is on the right and sell button is on the left, which is the reverse of "standard" and there is no option to change it. That's why it's a "Chevy" not a "Rolls Royce".
2. it's slightly more cumbersome to navigate in than Ninja Trader.
But like driving a Chevy versus a Rolls, the cost of the Rolls for most of us makes the Chevy favorable, because the top speed is no different and the air conditioners blow equally cool air.
Sincerely,
Carl Strain, trading only the Mini and Micro S&P.”
“Cons:
Well the free version only has 1 chart at a time.
Only 3 alerts
Lags a bit vs broker native trading software
Pros:
3 minute charts
Really easy to place orders on the chart
Can add take profit / stop loss order AFTER my market order is already open
accessible from any computer
mobile access”
“TradingView is a great place to start futures trading with AMP. It's easy to get up and running and it looks beautiful. Depending on your account size or trading style it may be all you ever need. I used TradingView for 3 years, but eventually I found it was not serving my needs. When there is a lot of trading activity TradingView becomes slow with substantial lag and there are very obvious delays between fills and chart movement. On bigger lot sizes (10+ contracts) I also noticed fill anomalies and TradingView would take a while to work out what was going on and "freeze" for a few seconds. TradingView also does not always calculate margins correctly and will not allow you to exit a position when certain other open orders exist, which can cause added losses in certain circumstances. TradingView only works with CQG so if you wish to use a different order routing service you can't. Overall, TradingView was acceptable to me for 3 years and is probably fine for beginners or for a quick start to try out futures trading, but if you're serious about your trading you would be better off with a more powerful platform like Sierra Chart.”
“I love how easy it is to place orders. CQG feels more confusing to me. I don’t trade intraday, so TradingView works well for my needs.
Bug:
When I’m logged in to my AMP account, there seems to be an issue with tradingviews alert placement — sometimes it doesn’t function properly and i cant set new alerts.
Suggestions:
1. It would be great to have more advanced order types available.
2. A tab showing historical executed orders and their P&L would be appreciated.
3. It would be helpful if users could change their CQG username.
4. The login process is a bit tedious since one has to copy and paste both the username and password every few days to login again. It would be nice if these could be saved securely.
5. Two-factor authentication (2FA) integration would be appreciated — ideally required only once when logging in from a new device, preferably using a security key. It would also be helpful to allow users to choose between Google Authenticator and a hardware security key.
Other brokers already have 2FA integration, but they often require re-authentication every few days, which can be cumbersome. In my opinion, verifying once per new device is sufficient.
Thank you for considering my input”
