SQ v GSB
I’m quite keen to explore whether users here have experience between using GSB and SQX for trading FUTURES on Tradestation and/or Multicharts.
I am considering trialing/purchasing one of the two (yes, I know I can trial both but it takes months to learn properly the ability to use either so it is not a costless process to trial both and then decide).
I’d be keen to hear people’s thoughts on these two platforms – from what I can see people on this forum overwhelmingly use SQ for FX with MT 4/5 and NOT futures with TS/MultiCharts.
My initial hunch is that GSB seems to have some technical advantages over SQ and certainly more used by futures traders but the GSB UI is not good. Hence, it would be good to hear from someone who has used both.
Thanks Notch – that’s helpful.
From some of the earlier posts, I saw you don’t use SQ much anymore.
Can SQ produce decent systems, if used properly, for futures – my worry with SQ is that people have had good success with forex on SQ/futures on GSB but I’m mainly interested in futures only.
1 year ago #258239
I can confirm notchs words. Community is growing devs are open and sqx is better and better.
Thanks – clonex, and for futures too? I’ve downloaded a trial
I have licenses for both SQ and GSB. Although I’m no expert in either (but hopefully I’ll get there someday), I think GSB is more geared towards finding day trading strategies for futures. All the examples and videos on their website are on day trading.
SQ is definitely more user friendly and since it’s more widely used, help is more readily available. The learning curve for GSB is pretty steep. But Peter (from GSB) answers questions quickly and there is also a forum on their website. I have been building strategies every day now in GSB for about a month and I’m still learning, but I’m getting decent results.
The challenge of choosing one over the other (like you state in your first post) is that you really need to get to know the software to get the best out of them. Since there are so many settings and tweaks in both. In my experience a trial period is not nearly long enough but then most people don’t have the time (or patience) to learn two different software systems anyway.
Even if we do develop a system in each for a specific instrument to do a test, the proof will really be if it can actually make money over an extended period of time. And that can also take months since a temporary drawdown doesn’t mean the system is bad, as you know.
I’m happy to discuss further if you want to PM me.
Sorry, it seems we can’t send PMs? Anyway, let me know if I can assist more.
Thanks Pieter – fully agree with you – GSB seems very powerful but yes it appears it is more day trading futures on index/energy.
I’m not looking to develop day-trading systems for now but do want to down the line, which may be a few months, it could be a year or more.
Agree with you that one would have to invest significant time (and not get discouraged by negative feedback) to get the most out of any tool.
I suppose the question then I should ask myself is, considering time is limited, which of the two do I think I would be most likely to use and hence invest the time in, considering that as of today:
a) I am not looking for intra-day strategies on FUTURES (not forex)
b) I am using Tradestation and my next step would be to use MC with IBKR
c) I am looking to trade a wide range of instruments (even if the strategies aren’t the best) to achieve maximum diversification
P.s: I think I’ve found you on Linkedin and sent a connect request
…I meant not looking for intra-day strategies on any instrument.
And only looking to develop strategies on futures (not FOREX)
SQ is definitely more user friendly.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to discuss this topic here. I mainly use SQ to develop strategies for Multicharts. And I tried GSB several times.
I agree with Pieter that SQ is definitely more user friendly. SQ is very easy to get started, and more and more professional, its custom project is great.
It seems that GSB is more suitable for TS / MC. SQ was mainly aimed at MT4 at the beginning, but it also provided support for TS / MC a long time ago, although it has some MT4 styles, such as more use of Open in signals blocks, the default signal bar is shift 1. However, developers are more concerned about user needs and are constantly improves it.
I guess what the SQ team wants to achieve is ambitious. In order to maintain consistency, the code is not so concise, but fortunately it is also readable. GSB normalized the indicator value, the strategy GSB generated looks like a black box to me. This is an important reason why I chose SQ.
So I recommend you to use SQX.
GSB is also a great software, and I also hope that the SQ team can learn some useful things from that.
And you can submit your requirements like this, or bugs feedback. SQ team will improve or fix it. That is great.
PS. did you know vnpy?
what is the logic behind this?
LongEntrySignal = ((OpenMonthly(Main chart) < HighWeekly(Main chart))
and (AwesomeOscillator(Main chart) < StdDev(Main chart,33, PRICE_CLOSE)));
You want to be a profitable algotrader? We started using StrateQuant software in early 2016. For now we have a very big knowhow for building EAs for every possible types of markets. We share this knowhow, apps, tools and also all final strategies with real traders. If you want to join us, fill in the FORM. 1500+ final SQX strategies for members running on demo accounts to verify the edge DEMO ACCS. We provide also strategies for indices - DAX, DOW JONES, NASDAQ, SP, UK, because we have realtick data from our brokers.
what is the logic behind this? LongEntrySignal = ((OpenMonthly(Main chart) < HighWeekly(Main chart)) and (AwesomeOscillator(Main chart) < StdDev(Main chart,33, PRICE_CLOSE)));
We can’t turn a blind eye to what hankeys mentioned.
I’m also aware of similar problems, such as one possible condition, CCI(14)>RSI (14). I also don’t think it makes any sense.
That is obviously a flaw of SQ. I guess SQ perhaps need some constraint on the elements candidate of comparisons.
Price value to price value, close>highest(close,10), SMA(close,5)>SMA(open,5), EMA(close,10)>SMA(Close,10), …
And Compare the values of indicators in the same class and don’t make meaningless attempts.
It’s time for the official to respond to the post. If SQ team can be positive about this, I believe it will be a good marketing, will also be a great help to improving SQ.
Is the flaw in that the logic doesn’t make sense or that there are zero-value addition issues/repeititon/duplication within the strategy?
If its the former, then does it really matter if it doesn’t make sense, as long as we trust the process of validation to be robust?
I exported your code to TradeStation, E-Mini Russell 2000 – equity graph attached.