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.
FIX Infrastructure It goes without saying that it’s imperative for trading technologists to thoroughly test their systems before the put them in a production environment. Clearly, building a market-beating trading platform requires a high level of uptime and a propensity for failure that’s as close to zero as possible. And for years technologists have used a range […] November 5, 2018
FIX Infrastructure Getting it right. In earlier blog posts, we’ve discussed the challenges of implementing efficient trading infrastructure testing systems, and the intricate complexities of their adoption. But once all this hard work is completed, what are the potential rewards to be reaped? The operational benefits from instituting an enterprise-wide approach to trading system testing go far […] October 23, 2018
Risk & Compliance Nine months into the MiFID II era, it’s time to look beyond the compliance issues and start considering the business opportunities presented to firms operating under the Systematic Internaliser regime. With the support from a value-adding regulatory solution, SI status can be used for competitive advantage, suggests Jonas Lindqvist, Principal, Trading and Trade Execution, Itiviti. […] October 9, 2018
FIX Infrastructure In previous blog posts, we have discussed the importance of trading infrastructure testing and the regulatory and operational impetus driving its necessity. But when push comes to shove, how easy is it to implement these complex systems? What types of testing solutions are available, and what are the biggest challenges to their adoption? Today’s trading […] October 2, 2018
By submitting this form, you acknowledge that data collected by us will be handled in accordance with our Privacy Notice.