AmiBroker vs Wealth-Lab

Discussion in 'AmiBroker' started by hylt, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. daniel,
    if you are still around. i would very much value your evaluation on
    the latest version of Amibroker or any other software.

    currently i have used WLD, NeoTicker and to lesser degree, AmiBroker.
    WLD i am most familiar with, but with fidelity taking over..time to
    move on. NeoTicker is very powerful, but support and user community
    is very lacking.
    that leaves AmiBroker, which i am hoping you can give an update on...

    --- In amibroker@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Ervi <daniel@n...> wrote:
    > Sorry for the late reply, but I missed this thread.
    >
    > I own both AmiBroker and Wealth-Lab, and have used, and still use,
    both pretty extensively. Below are the pro's and cons for each,
    based *on my usage* of them and their suitability to my needs.
    Please don't flame me, as this is based on my perceptions, and yours
    will probably differ. :)
    >
    > Amibroker Pro's:
    >
    > - Fast. Incredibly fast!
    > - Automation interface is very complete, and Plugin API is
    excellent
    > - Built in Composite support.
    > - Great for rapid indicator/system testing because of the simple
    array notation
    > - The latest betas have portfolio testing which is truly necessary
    IMHO
    > - Excellent support, with thorough answers within hours
    > - The community following (this list) is a great resource for
    newbies of both trading and programming
    > - The third-party addins add some really great features and most
    are free
    > - Tick-by-tick updates of indicators is great for monitor systems
    in an auto-trading environment
    > - I prefer the C++-style syntax over the Delphi syntax
    >
    >
    > Amibroker Con's:
    >
    > - No Quote.Com support. I know the developers API is expensive,
    but Quote.com is the only data provider to supply > 120 days of
    historical 1 min data and unlimited symbols. It goes back to 1997
    for most stocks and indexes on a 1 min basis. I have >10 gigs of 1
    min data for the SP500 components at my disposal thanks to Quote.com.
    > - Limited drawing support. What is here is great, but there are a
    few things that would make it superb. Being able to plot a triangle
    or box would allow one to plot Gartley's or highlight trades with a
    green or red box based on whether they made a profit or not, or
    maybe highlight the opening range in orange until it is over.
    Changing background colors would allow gradients to show a condition
    getting better or worse. You get the idea...
    > - No position management functions. I find it harder to program
    systems when you rely on a simple boolean on/off for entry/exit
    signals. In WL, once a position is created, you can use position-
    based functions like PositionEntryBar() or PositionActive() or
    PositionMFE() to loop through a collection of positions and apply
    simple tests/exits to them. Multiple concurrent position systems
    are greatly simplified this way as trade management is done on a
    trade by trade basis. FWIW, this would eliminate the need for
    functions like ExRem().
    > - No native class/object support. This can be done via the API,
    so it's not that big a deal. But for complex scripts (ie a native
    AFL genetic algorithm implementation via includes) this would be a
    life-saver.
    > - No auto-trading interface/API. This for me is the biggest
    reason I have WL.
    > - Position Sizing algorithms needs to be done via your script. WL
    allows you to separate the Positions Sizing from the trade
    entry/exit scripts. This makes it easy to try various position
    sizing algorithms without the need to change any code.
    > - No built in debugger (ie breakpoints, etc)
    >
    >
    > Wealth-Lab Pro's:
    >
    > - Native auto-trading with attached portfolio management. This
    was implemented really well because of the attached portfolio, and I
    have used it with over 20 positions auto-trading at once on a 5 min
    timeframe. It didn't miss a beat.
    > - Rich set of graphics features. I have some pretty advanced
    plots that highlight all types of scenario's during the trading day.
    > - Built in debugger, with breakpoints and the ability to look at
    variable contents
    > - API's available for most areas of the program, including a
    broker interface
    > - Language is based on Delphi/Pascal (OOP) and allows for
    classes/inheritance/polymorphism/etc.
    > - Ability to download new "chartscripts" (systems, indicators,
    etc) via a menu option. This is a great *built-in* repository for
    those starting out, or for those looking to explore other ideas.
    Simply refresh the system by choosing "download chartscripts" from
    the menu.
    > - Position Sizing is a separate script. Once you see the
    difference that position sizing can have on a strategy, this feature
    becomes critical. You can apply any sizing strategy during system
    ranking/optimization/portfolio simulations/etc. This can
    dramatically change the results of these methods.
    > - Custom optimization fitness functions. You can program an
    expectancy function and use it as your optimization criteria for
    example.
    > - Full suite of position management functions.
    >
    >
    > Wealth-Lab Con's:
    >
    > - Slow. Molasses slow compared to AB. If you have greater than
    100,000 bars, forget about it.
    > - Indicators don't update on tick intervals. The last price bar
    (aka ghost bar) does, but nothing else.
    > - Plugin API is based on COM (slower) and doesn't allow for native
    syntax-highlighting
    > - You can't import ASCII files to a faster native binary format.
    So every system test you run has to re-parse the data, which can
    slow you down dramatically on large datasets.
    > - Simple/Rapid indicator and system development is slower compared
    to AB. The Metastock-style array notation in AB is a huge
    timesaver. There are wizards in WL3 to help with this, but I still
    find the process cumbersome compared to AB/MS.
    > - You can't auto-trade on less than 1 minute bars. It would have
    been nice to trade the ES or NQ on tick bars, but it can't be done
    yet.
    >
    >
    > These are *my* impressions on the two packages. I use AB whenever
    I need to rapidly test an idea, or if I am trying to run a test on a
    large set of data. I then move to WL to refine the ideas, apply
    position sizing, and then deploy them via the auto-trading. So for
    me at least, the two complement each other very well.
    >
    > Hope I don't stir up any trouble with this post. I just wanted to
    stress that both packages have there place, and although AB is great
    in it's current state, there is always room for improvement. Or
    else TJ would have retired ages ago, right TJ? ;)
    >
    > Daniel
    >
    >
    >
    > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:44:07 -0000, seneca_kw wrote:
    > > I enoyed the recent informative thread on AmiBroker vs Metastock.
    > > I'd appreciate a similar comparison with Wealth-Lab. I searched
    > > the archive but found no mention of WL.
    > >
    > > I'm not expecting a point-by-point rundown, but for those who
    have
    > > tried both, is there one feature or another that really was a
    > > difference maker?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Wayne