Can you measure and validate flexibility?

By Chris Anderson, Senior Product Manager
September 3, 2015

Conventional wisdom holds that if you want a truly flexible and open trading platform you should build your own. If time to market and cost are your top priorities, buy from a vendor. Today, however, some vendors claim to offer the flexibility of an in-house system combined with the convenience of one off-the-shelf. Is there a way to scrutinize the truth in this argument?

If you’re considering investing in a vendor platform and openness is a top priority, it is important to identify and evaluate the truly “open” platforms up front. Otherwise, you risk getting halfway through an implementation process only to discover that the functionality you wanted to customize is locked. But are there ways to measure and validate a vendor’s claim to openness?

One generic measure is lines of code (LOC), comparing how much of the system code is locked down vs. open and changeable. For example, Tbricks by Itiviti’s clean separation of system core and apps makes it easy to count the LOC and compare the two – by this measure, more than one quarter of the system is implemented as open and changeable code (apps). But what does this actually tell us? Is 25% a ‘good’ number?

Tbricks by Itiviti is actually designed to allow extension with as few lines of code as possible, sometimes with no code at all. The API is architected to remove ‘typical’ overheads from the development process, such as concurrency, memory management and excessive boilerplate code. There is also a massive amount of built-in functionality specifically for writing trading applications.

So, LOC is not the whole truth – how else can one evaluate a vendor’s claim to flexibility? Future articles will discuss this and other ways to determine system suitability (in-house or off-the-shelf) in depth.

Related Content

The evolving ETF landscape – and how to capitalize on it

The evolving ETF landscape – and how to capitalize on it

Trading In recent years, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have seen phenomenal activity and growth. Regulation, product innovation and investor appetite have driven global Assets under management (AUM) to record levels, while also fueling increasing market structure complexity and straining trading platform capabilities across the board. Itiviti, in conjunction with GreySpark Partners, recently engaged in a comprehensive review […] May 18, 2017

ETFs – the next big opportunity for trading firms? (Series)

ETFs – the next big opportunity for trading firms? (Series)

Trading Videos from the ETF panel held at FOW Trading Amsterdam 2017. ETFs are big business in the US but elsewhere take-up has been slower. This is now changing as investors seek to gain lower cost exposure to global trends. Regional competition is hotting up as exchanges vie to build regional hubs for ETF trading. But […] May 16, 2017

ETFs: key growth drivers & future prospects

ETFs: key growth drivers & future prospects

Trading Chris Anderson, Senior Product Manager at Itiviti, talks to FOW Amsterdam about current trends in the ETF space, the potential for future growth and Itiviti’s commitment to providing solutions to the biggest challenges seen in the market. Download the full white paper May 11, 2017

White paper – The Exchange traded Funds Marketplace in 2017

White paper – The Exchange traded Funds Marketplace in 2017

Trading As continued strong growth is predicted for Exchange-traded funds (ETFs), the marketplace is also becoming increasingly complex. Itiviti has thus engaged with GreySpark Partners in a comprehensive review to map the key factors that will shape the future of ETF trading. The resulting whitepaper covers the competitive and regulatory issues facing ETF market participants in […] May 8, 2017