|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Doug -- I looked at the two for almost a month before deciding on AB.
I finally chose AB because of it's speed, language (similar to MS
which I have a lot of experience with), ability to code and provide
exportable output on anything I want to test, community and, last but
not least, developer (Tomasz).
On the exportable output part, this is extremely important to me
because I take AB's output and analyze it further with other
software. This gives me MUCH more than any single package ever
could. For example AB, when paired up with Miner3D Excel ($149),
will produce 3D optimization maps that will put WL to shame.
Mark
--- In amibroker@xxxx, "sguod99" <dnstarich@xxxx> wrote:
> This question may have been asked before but I can't find it in the
> AB thread index. What do the members of this thread see as the
> advantages of Amibroker vs Wealth-Lab Developer aside from cost? I
> have an evaluation copy of both and have played around with each in
a
> fairly simple way. From what I can tell both have large supportive
> user groups, both support my QP2 data vendor (but AB may offer more
> QP2 fundamental data support), both have powerful
trading/backtesting
> languages, AB adds support for JScript & VBScript in-line dlls
(many
> of which are available via the AB Yahoo database), WL has a huge on-
> line trading strategy script base, WL allows its language to
> reference multiple tickers in the same script (not sure if AB
does?),
> and WL has a slick user interface with lots of graphical
> presentations including a neat 3-D optimization variable map.
>
> I do understand that Thomasz is working on an improved charting
> engine/user interface for V4.2. But if I were to sum up at this
date
> my conclusion is that, for about 6.5X the cost, WL offers roughly
> what AB does plus a very professional user interface and a large
> number of trading scripts at their website.
>
> Is this an accurate comparison or an over simplification? Are
there
> other factors that I'm overlooking? Thanks in advance for your
> response.
>
> Doug
|