Barriers that make MetaTrader unattractive to big brokers

Scorpion
3906

I have been thinking of reasons why MetaTrader is not so popular among big brokers. This question popped up in my mind when I was trying to collect the list of MetaTrader-compatible brokers. It was disappointed to find out that there is no big broker that use MT platform.

Having a quick look at MT functionality, you can notice that it is pretty awesome! On the left there are live streaming quotes clearly show in bid and ask. On the right of that, you can see a huge flexible chart with a large selection of built-in indicators as well as custom indicators to draw along. On the main toolbar, there are plenty of useful buttons like line studies buttons, charts buttons, and timeframe buttons. What I like the most is the buttom part. It is the terminal bar which contains list of open trades, account history, news, alerts, and journal organized in easy-access tabs.

If you use MT a bit, you'll learn more that you can write your own trading system, backtest it, plug it in the chart, and have it buy/sell for you. Isn't that cute?

But how come that MT platform is a losser in terms of broker attraction. What do you think?

Scorpion
3906
Scorpion  

Well in my own opinion, the barrier is the language itself. MetaQuotes the maker of MetaTrader is based in Russia, and most of their programmers are Russian. For users they might not feel much discomfort for seeing some text in Russian, but for big brokers, of course, it is a big discomfort, because an acceptable platform for big broker must have wonderful functions as well as wonderful supports. MT has wonder functions, but lacks of wonderful supports. If you write any technical email to MetaQuotes, you'll get reply in weird English or even no reply if the answerer doesn't know how to read/write English. Also, their API, for example, are commented in Russian which is no good for most English developers including brokers. In conclusion, if MetaQuotes was based in USA, MetaTrader would be very popular in real trading now.

Steven
136
Steven  

One thing I don't like about MT platform is that they combine the bid and the ask into one candle, one the charts and the stored data on their servers. One thing I don't understand that is going on is with the OHLC prices. I know High is the High of the ask, and low is the low of bid. But how are Open and Close calculated? On the good side I do beleive MT keeps track of tick volume. I know of no one else that does this, but I have not done anything that needs it yet, so it is cool but not needed for me.

Steven

Chief1Oar
3
Chief1Oar  

Hello everyone, I just joined and saw this thread. I use Metatrader because I like the interface, and I program a lot of indicators and experts. Personally prefer this to any I have seen so far, although I would like to check out some of the other systems.

All the comments above are spot on, I think you have pinpointed the main reasons.

I don't trade with them for 2 reasons..

1. I don't trust my money being in Russia...

2. Last year I posted a question on their help forum, and while I was reviewing the forum I ran across a comment from the Metatrader people which stated that all orders sent to MT were manually input. In other words, you could have all the best expert in the world automatically making your trades, but ultimately success was dependent upon an operator sitting behind a terminal approving those orders. I found this rather frightening and felt that it defeated the purpose of auto execution programs. Consequently, I just use them for indicators.

Lastly, I find their opening and closing times difficult to work around, as I am in Colo.

Well, guess thats my take on Metatrader...

Good Trades to all..

Chief

Scorpion
3906
Scorpion  

Welcome to FX Fisherman forums, Chief1Oar. I bet you should not believe the "manually input from the operator", coz it's not true. MetaTrader provides Server API which automates all tasks including open/close orders.

I agree with you that many Russian brokers are not trustworthy.

gazuz
1264
gazuz  
scorpion:
I agree with you that many Russian brokers are not trustworthy.

That is why I am looking at InterbankFX which is situatued in the US, a little car ride and I can get to their headquarters

TraderSeven
210
TraderSeven  

I think there are diffrent reasons.

If a broker supplies a codeble interface they will get a lot of difficult questions they don't want.

Lots of traders use their own programs like ProSuite/MetaStock/WealthLab/AmiBroker.

Wealthlab is bought and used by a large broker.

MetaStock is disputable but the others are better than MetaTrader I think.

ProSuite has an enourmous amount of plugins and AmiBroker and especially WealthLab have a florishing community.

Metatrader is free. That's one of its major strong points.

Scorpion
3906
Scorpion  
Chief1Oar:
2. Last year I posted a question on their help forum, and while I was reviewing the forum I ran across a comment from the Metatrader people which stated that all orders sent to MT were manually input. In other words, you could have all the best expert in the world automatically making your trades, but ultimately success was dependent upon an operator sitting behind a terminal approving those orders. I found this rather frightening and felt that it defeated the purpose of auto execution programs. Consequently, I just use them for indicators.

Hmm... I've just found out that your statement is real, as a MetaQuotes representative told me. There is an option for broker: manual or automatic confirmation. I think many small to medium brokers would choose the Manual one, coz not many transaction for them. So I must find the broker that don't do manual. This is frightening me.

Ravique
575
Ravique  

InterbankFX is automatic as far as i heard. I think we discussed it in some thread.

Scorpion
3906
Scorpion  

Yes, IBFX is likely automatic. I'll email them to make sure.

[Deleted]  

Yeah I read that reply on their forums the other day, scorpion.

I simply can't believe any broker would process transactions manually, despite the brokering house's size. Can you imagine the volume ? Yikes

Martin