QuantRocket

Exchange Pricing Thought


#1

Just a thought. For Quantopian migrants (I am one), there will be plenty of algorithms that require filtering across multiple exchanges. Perhaps I’m reading this wrong but in order to access say, NYSE and NASDAQ together, we’d be required to upgrade to a minimum of 3 exchanges? It doesn’t seem to make sense for someone with a 10k account to pay $99 a month. Not sure what the logic is regarding exchanges and account value thresholds. I will personally be using the premium version to access international exchanges so it won’t affect me, but I’m sure it will affect plenty of people.

Hope progress is going well and looking forward to going live…


#2

Someone else brought this up as well regarding NYSE/Nasdaq. It’s somewhat of a US-specific issue, since most countries have one major exchange, the US being an exception to the rule. In terms of size, the NYSE and NASDAQ are of course the two largest exchanges in the world, even separately. Still, I understand why people who are used to thinking of the “US stock market” would have a concern about having to choose NYSE or NASDAQ.

Why limit the number of exchanges on cheaper plans at all? One rationale is that with the lower account limits, you probably don’t have enough capital to be able to run a diversified portfolio of international strategies anyway. Another rationale is that SAAS plans typically offer more features the more they cost, and QuantRocket’s main distinction in features between plans is the number of exchanges. I agree someone with 10k is unlikely to upgrade to 3 exchanges (although they might do so temporarily for backtesting), but doesn’t the person with 100k want to feel like they’re getting more features than someone who’s paying substantially less?

Other than exchange limits, pricing is based on account size. That is, pricing is mostly designed as an expense ratio, the idea being that the value of the software is proportional to how much money it stands to help you make, which is a function of your capital base. Perhaps expense ratios are so engrained in the financial services industry that no other distinction in features or exchanges is required, and everyone could have unlimited exchanges, unlimited features, and just pay an expense ratio. That would be fine, but I would first want to be convinced that this would be acceptable to higher paying customers.


#3

Totally hear you on this. Personally, I wouldn’t feel snubbed if someone had access to most of the features, but that is purely subjective. Your team will figure it out, just wanted to give a heads up to help.