Quote from jessop:
- 10 pts ($1k for 1c) on ER2,
- 80 pts ($400 for 1c) on YM,
- 18pts ($360 for 1) on NQ
- 9 pts ($450 for 1c) on the ES.
These numbers are misleading unless you include factors such as tick size, tick value, and margin requirements. For example, one could argue that trading 2 YM contracts (about same risk) would provide more flexibility for scaling in and out than 1 ER2 contract. What really matters is:
1. leverage - but not much difference between contracts, and rarely an issue for small trader (i.e., their risk limit as % of account size is way below their max contracts based on margin requirements)
2. edge - is there something special about the trading edge provided by a particular contract (i.e., knowing when to buy or sell) - but, given the way all the index contracts track one another, it is unlikely that any one of them is truly easier to trade than any other
3. tick size - if you trade in very short time frames, this may make a difference (with YM and ER2 being better), but for many traders this difference is in the realm of "noise" and hardly worth considering
What's surprising is not that more traders haven't moved to ER2, but that so many of them are so easily confused about the above issues.

(BTW, the particular range values quoted above are not even typical of these indexes, where, for example, the typical YM:ER2 point ratio in recent weeks has been over 12:1)