Trading Recipes vs Wealth-Lab vs Amibroker

D

dealer

Anyone had experience using Trading Recipes and care to comment on the whether it is still a viable testing environment given the availabilty of WL and amibroker?

I trade futures not stocks.

thanks.
 
TR and WL are the once that have true portfolio backtesting. The last time I looked at TR it did not have any charting and was a DOS software. I did not buy the demo but I was promised that there will be a Windows version soon. Last year it was still not out, so I am not sure. I am surely not the right person to tell you all the advantages that WL has over the rest. :)
 
AmiBroker is capable of anything. What can't been done now, will eventually be added to the software. If you can't wait there are numerous third-party developers who will either be convinced to do it for you or help you learn to do it yourself. I can't speak for the others, I only tried Wealth Lab for a month. If money is no option then maybe...maybe another program is superior to Ami, but I doubt it.

I have some credibility in this field as I have learned many non-trading pieces of software as complex as AutoCAD, Corel, etc. and if I know a piece of well-developed software when I see it. WealthLab was impressive, but not nearly as impressive as Ami, which I beleive is much faster. Hope this helps, probably not since I don't know about Recipes.
 
After some software feeding:

1. Wealth-Lab is best for backtesting.

2. Tradestation2000i is best for actual trading intraday signals.

Make systems with Wealth-lab.... convert good system with Tradestation and trade using the signals from that... No best all round software exists...
 
Quote from WDGann:

After some software feeding:

1. Wealth-Lab is best for backtesting.

2. Tradestation2000i is best for actual trading intraday signals.

Make systems with Wealth-lab.... convert good system with Tradestation and trade using the signals from that... No best all round software exists...
More...

WL is the most user friendly software and allows one to write the backtesting code relatively easily. AB is faster for backtesting though, but being pretty cryptic, is not as user friendly as WL. Still is much cheaper than WL.
 
Quote from wally_:



WL is the most user friendly software and allows one to write the backtesting code relatively easily. AB is faster for backtesting though, but being pretty cryptic, is not as user friendly as WL. Still is much cheaper than WL.
More...

I have heard this before, it must have some validity. Somehow though in my first 30 days with WL I was clueless using the language and with AB I was off and running. I think it may be more an effect of the help files. I don't use help files very much in the early stages of using a program, so this might explain it. Maybe it is a personality thing, because I found AB very intuitive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top