Our 58-point scientific Trade Ideas lab test, audit, and benchmarking include speed, accuracy, value, and feature depth with data-driven precision.
Trade Ideas is a high-velocity scanning and signal platform built for active traders who need fast idea discovery, reliable alerts, and AI-assisted trade setups more than deep charting aesthetics or long-term portfolio analytics.
In my benchmark-based lab test across 17 categories, Trade Ideas earned a Lab Test Composite Score of 4.50/5, placing it above the median competitor (4.19) and very close to the “High” benchmark (4.75).
In this report, I translate the scores into practical workflows, show the granular test results behind each category, and clarify exactly who Trade Ideas is (and is not) worth paying for.
Lab Test Composite Score
Trade Ideas scores 4.50, above the median competitor (4.19) and not far off the High benchmark (4.75). The reason the composite is strong is simple: Trade Ideas concentrates performance in categories that directly reduce execution friction and opportunity cost—signals, scanning, pattern recognition, backtesting, AI/algo intelligence, alerts, and community support.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite Lab Performance Score (CLPS) | Average for all ratings + 5X Superpower Boost for Top 5 killer features | 4.50 | 4.75 | 4.21 | 2.90 | TradingView |
Trade Ideas lands in the top tier overall. In my audit notes, the platform’s edge comes from real-time scanning and high-fidelity AI-driven signal workflows, rather than “all-in-one” breadth of charting.
This is not an “everything platform.” It is a high-throughput decision engine: find tradable candidates quickly, validate quickly, and act (manually or via automation).
- Composite Lab Performance Score (CLPS): 4.50 (High 4.75 | Median 4.19 | Low 2.9)
Lab Score Table (Benchmarked)
Reasons to Consider
- Elite trade signals: Trade Signal Quality is 5.00 (median 0.00), a rare differentiator in the benchmark set.
- AI/algo edge is real: AI & Algo Index 4.50 (median 2.00) backed by explicit “AI-driven strategies and signals” positioning.
- Pattern recognition is near-best-in-class: 4.62 with 95% accuracy and 136 patterns recognized.
- Scanning is fast and deep: 208ms S&P 500 scan performance and strong criteria depth, with full points for custom code scanning.
- Backtesting stack is unusually complete: no-code + flexible coding + basket testing (all 5.00), with reporting support.
- Strong community and support: CUI 4.75 and Support 4.50 reduce the time and friction to become effective.
Reasons to Avoid / Pair With Another Tool
- Poor price-to-value score in the benchmark: Pricing & Value Index 1.25 vs 2.50 median—you must use it frequently to justify cost.
- Charting depth is below average: Chart Analysis Depth 2.93 vs 3.17 median; pair with TradingView or a chart-first tool if charts are your primary decision surface.
- News depth is weak in the rubric: Financial News 1.00 vs 2.30 median; pair with a real-time news terminal if you trade catalysts.
- The broker ecosystem is limited: Only 2 brokers are integrated, resulting in a low “Broker Integration” score; the best fit is IBKR/E*TRADE-centric workflows.
- Portfolio analytics are not a focus: 22/80 critical metrics covered (27.5%); pair with a portfolio analytics platform for longer-horizon investing.
Verdict
Based on the lab data, I view Trade Ideas as a premium, specialist platform that earns its 4.50 composite score by dominating the categories that matter most to active trading: signals, AI/algo intelligence, pattern recognition, scanning, alerts, and backtesting.
The cost is the trade-off, and the weakness profile is consistent: news depth, portfolio analytics, chart depth, and a broad broker ecosystem are not where Trade Ideas is trying to win.
If you are an active trader who will use scanning/signals daily, Trade Ideas is one of the few tools that lab-tests as a true “idea engine.”
If you are an investor, a chart purist, or a news-first trader, Trade Ideas is best treated as a paired component—powerful upstream discovery and signal generation, complemented by dedicated charting/news/portfolio systems.
Pricing & Value Index
This is consistent with Trade Ideas’ market positioning: “AI-driven strategies and signals” are sold as a premium layer.
Trade Ideas scores 1.25 versus the median 2.50—one of its weakest lab outcomes. The lab data shows a clear “premium tax”: the tool is expensive relative to the feature bundle, even though the features themselves are strong.
Trade Ideas is objectively expensive on a cost basis. The value case depends on whether you actually use its real-time scanning + signal stack (where my audit notes say it is differentiated), versus using it as a general-purpose charting tool (where cheaper options dominate).
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost-per-day | $/day on an annual plan. Minimum viable plan with real-time exchange data | $5.85 | 12.36 | 1.97 | 0.5 | AAII |
| $ per feature | Effective Monthly Cost /Total Features | $10.47 | 28.92 | 4.29 | 0.0 | Motley Fool |
| Effective Monthly Cost /Total Features Percentile Ranking | – | 1.25 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 1.00 | MetaStock, Benzinga Pro, eSignal, Scanz, Optuma |
| Effective Monthly Cost (EMC) | EMC = (Plan price + required real-time data fees + any required add-ons) / month | $178.00 | 376.00 | 60.00 | 0.0 | AAII |
Important nuance (why you’ll see two “$ per feature” values in the dataset):
- In the feature model, Trade Ideas shows Total Feature Points = 58.93 and a separate $/feature-point = 3.02 (derived from that feature-point framework).
- In the Pricing & Value Index, the scored benchmark uses EMC/Total Features (yielding 10.47) and then converts it to a percentile score (1.25).
These are two different normalizations—do not treat them as the same test.
So what? If you do not use Trade Ideas’ scanning/signals daily, the value collapses. If you do, the pricing can still be rational because it replaces multiple tools and compresses decision time.
Value Score (VP)
Value Score (VP) is where Trade Ideas justifies itself: 4.03 vs the 2.82 median, approaching the High benchmark (4.37). The message is clear: it’s expensive, but the feature set is unusually deep for active trading.
VP is built from Quality (feature scores), Breadth (feature richness), and Access (device coverage). In my workflow terms: “Do the features actually work well, are there enough of them to run a complete trading process, and can I access them where I trade?”
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value Score (VP) | Sum of Feature Quality (60% Weight), Feature Depth (30%) & Device Support Depth (10%) | 4.03 | 4.37 | 2.82 | 1.70 | TradingView |
| Value Rank | Percentile Ranking | 4.50 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 1.00 | TradingView |
| Feature Quality | Average of All Feature Quality Ratings | 3.84 | 4.16 | 2.97 | 2.00 | TrendSpider |
| Feature Breadth | Feature richness (count of meaningful core features) | 17 | 17.00 | 12.00 | 9.0 | TradingView, Trade Ideas |
| Feature Depth | Percentile Ranking | 4.75 | 4.75 | 3.00 | 1.00 | Trade Ideas |
| Device Support Depth | Web 2 points, (PC, Android/iOS/ 1 Point each) | 3.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | TradingView, TC2000 |
Trade Ideas scores very strongly on feature breadth and depth (it ties for the top depth tier). The relative weakness is in device coverage versus truly cross-device platforms, according to my audit notes.
So what? Traders who need a full “idea → validate → alert → execute” loop benefit. Investors and chart purists will pay for power they don’t fully use.
Speed & Ease of Use
Speed & Ease of Use scores 3.92, slightly below the median of 4.17. The story here is not “slow platform”—it is “fast once loaded, heavier to start and learn.” Audit note (“slow Java startup; blazing fast once in memory”) aligns with the lab measurements.
Trade Ideas is solid but not elite on multi-chart latency and “frictionless UI” scoring. In my audit notes, the platform can feel slower at startup (Java footprint) but becomes fast once running—especially in active scanning workflows.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Speed & Use Index Rating | Average of Time to Chart Performance, Multimonitor Chart Speed & 3 Click Rule: Ease of Use | 3.92 | 5.00 | 3.75 | 2.50 | TradingView, Seeking Alpha |
| Time to Chart Speed (Seconds) | Seconds from clicking the icon to a fully loaded chart with 200 price bars & 2 indicators. | 4.70 | 17.03 | 4.70 | 1.6 | TradingView |
| Time to Chart Performance | Speed to Chart Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 4.50 | 3.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, Finviz |
| Multi-Chart Latency (ms) | – | 292.00 | 667.00 | 209.00 | 10.0 | TC2000 |
| Multimonitor Chart Speed | Multi-Chart Sync Points | 3.50 | 5.00 | 3.50 | 0.00 | TradingView, TC2000, eSignal |
| 3-Click Rule Test | Number of Clicks to place a trade or launch a scan | 3.00 | 6.00 | 3.00 | 2.0 | TradingView, TrendSpider, eSignal, Scanz |
| 3 Click Rule: Ease of Use | 3 Click Points (each click > 3 = 1 minus point | 3.25 | 5.00 | 3.25 | 0.30 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Finviz |
So what? If you trade actively and keep the platform running, the speed profile is strong. If you want instant, lightweight UX and a minimal learning curve, Trade Ideas will feel denser than average.
Chart Analysis Depth Index
Chart Analysis Depth scores 2.93, below the 3.17 median and far from the High benchmark (5.00). This confirms the product reality: Trade Ideas is scanner-and-signal first; charting is present but not the deepest module.
Trade Ideas is not trying to win “deep charting.” My audit notes characterize it as a scanner-first approach; charting exists, but it’s not the platform’s core advantage.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chart Analysis Depth Index | Average of Chart Depth, Indicator Depth & Custom Coding Scores | 2.93 | 5.00 | 3.17 | 0.50 | TradingView |
| Chart Types | Total Count | 6.00 | 38.00 | 10.00 | 1.0 | Optuma |
| Chart Depth | Chart Type Score 0.3 points per chart | 1.80 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 0.30 | TradingView, Benzinga Pro, eSignal, Optuma, Seeking Alpha |
| Indicators | Total Count | 80.00 | 400.00 | 116.00 | 0.0 | TradingView, TOS |
| Indicator Depth | Indicators Scores 0.025 points per indicator | 2.00 | 5.00 | 2.90 | 0.00 | TradingView, MetaStock, TOS, Stock Rover |
| Custom Indicator Coding | Available = 5 Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, TC2000, MetaStock |
Audit note (context): “Primarily an AI-driven scanner; charting is supplementary.”
So what? If you need deep discretionary charting, pair Trade Ideas with a chart-first platform. If your charts are confirmation, not discovery, Trade Ideas is adequate—especially given it still earns full points for custom indicator coding.
Chart Pattern Depth & Accuracy
This is a top-tier strength: 4.62 vs 2.73 median, close to the High benchmark (4.88). In workflows, this reduces false positives and speeds up filtering: pattern recognition becomes a practical scan dimension rather than a novelty label.
This is one of Trade Ideas’ standout areas. In my audit notes, a large portion of the pattern power is effectively “embedded into” Holly AI-style signal logic rather than presented as a pure chart-annotation experience.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pattern Recognition Efficacy & Accuracy | Average of Pattern Recognition Depth & Accuracy Scores | 4.62 | 4.88 | 2.73 | 0.00 | TrendSpider |
| Total Patterns | Count of unique patterns recognized | 136.00 | 226.00 | 57.50 | 0.0 | TrendSpider |
| Pattern Recognition Depth | 0.33 Points per pattern recognized | 4.49 | 5.00 | 1.90 | 0.00 | TrendSpider |
| Candle Patterns Recognized | – | 85.00 | 172.00 | 20.00 | 0.0 | TrendSpider |
| Chart Price & Trend Patterns Recognized | – | 51.00 | 54.00 | 16.00 | 0.0 | TrendSpider |
| Accuracy | Percent Accurate | 95.00 | 95.00 | 89.00 | 0.0 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaStock |
| Pattern Recognition Accuracy | Accuracy Points 0.05 point per percent accurate | 4.75 | 4.75 | 4.48 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaStock |
Audit note: “15 specific chart patterns + 70 breakout patterns are integrated into Holly AI trade signals.”
So what? Pattern traders and momentum traders benefit immediately. If you don’t trade patterns, this still improves scan quality by reducing noise in candidate selection.
Scanning Performance
Scanning Performance is strong: 3.88 vs 3.38 median. This is the “engine room” of Trade Ideas, and the granular metrics show why: sub-200ms scanning on an S&P 500 universe and meaningful filter depth.
Trade Ideas is strong for real-time scanning performance, with fast S&P 500 multi-criteria scans. My audit notes emphasize day-trader-centric criteria depth (VWAP, support/resistance behavior, catalyst-style filters) rather than “broad everything” scanning.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market Scanning Latency & Depth | Average of Scanning Speed, Criteria & Customer Code Scores | 3.88 | 5.00 | 3.38 | 0.80 | Stock Rover |
| Scanner Performance (ms) | Milliseconds to search the entire S&P 500 across 5 different criteria. | 208.00 | 2500.00 | 300.00 | 7.0 | TradingView |
| Scanning Speed (ms) | Scanner Performance Points | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 1.00 | TradingView, Benzinga Pro, Stock Rover |
| Scanner Auto-Refresh Rate (seconds) | Auto-Refresh Speed(Not Scored) | 1.00 | 60.00 | 1.00 | 0.0 | MetaTrader, Stock Rover, Motley Fool, Seeking Alpha |
| Scanning Criteria & Depth | Total Criteria Count | 210.00 | 675.00 | 200.00 | 30.0 | Stock Rover |
| Scanning Criteria & Depth | Scanning Criteria 0.0125 points per criteria | 2.63 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 0.80 | TrendSpider, Stock Rover |
| Custom Code Scanning | Exists 5 Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, TC2000, MetaStock |
Audit note: Day-trading-specific criteria (Fibonacci, candle logic, support/resistance, VWAP, etc.).
So what? If you trade intraday setups, Trade Ideas’ scanning stack is meaningfully better than average. If you screen monthly for long-term investing, you won’t capture the advantage.
Backtesting Performance
Backtesting is a major differentiator: median of 4.38 vs 3.38, close to High (4.90). The key is not just speed—it’s the combination of no-code backtesting, flexible coding, basket testing, and reporting.
Trade Ideas is legitimately strong here: no-code backtesting, flexible strategy logic, and basket testing all score at the ceiling. The main trade-off is speed versus the absolute fastest engines (and, depending on your workflow, you may prioritize its “regime-adaptive” simulation approach over raw milliseconds).
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative Backtesting Fidelity | Average of Backtesting Speed, No Coding Required, Flexible Coding, Report Quality & Multi-Stock Backtesting Scores | 4.38 | 4.90 | 3.38 | 0.00 | Portfolio123 |
| Backtesting Speed (ms) | Time required to run a strategy simulation over 10 years of daily data or 2 months of 5-minute data (milliseconds) | 929.00 | 6000.00 | 302.00 | 7.0 | TradingView |
| Backtesting Speed | Backtesting Speed Points | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.25 | 0.00 | TradingView, MetaStock, TOS, Stock Rover |
| No Coding Required | Zero Code Backtesting 5 Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, Finviz, TOS, VectorVest, Tickeron |
| Flexible Coding Backtesting | Exists = 5 points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaStock, |
| Backtesting Report Quality | Backtesting Report Quality Percent | 70.00 | 100.00 | 70.00 | 0.0 | TrendSpider |
| Backtesting Report Quality | % of total reporting criteria available. 0.05 points per 1% | 3.50 | 5.00 | 2.25 | 0.00 | TrendSpider, Portfolio123 |
| Multi-Stock Basket Backtesting | If Exists 5 Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaStock, Finviz |
So what? If you build repeatable rules-based strategies, Trade Ideas compresses the “idea → validation” cycle. If you never backtest, you’re leaving one of the tool’s biggest edges unused.
Trading Bot & Auto-Trading Reliability
Auto-trading reliability scores 4.00 vs 2.50 median, which is a meaningful edge. The breakdown shows why: Trade Ideas earns full points for both the automation path and sophistication, then is constrained by a lack of a published SLA/credits/uptime promise in my audit.
Trade Ideas explicitly supports broker-linked execution via Brokerage+ and provides connection instructions for Interactive Brokers and E*TRADE.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automated Execution & Bot Reliability | Sum of Automation Path, Strategy/Bot Sophistication, Operational Assurance Points | 4.00 | 4.50 | 2.50 | 0.00 | TrendSpider |
| Automation Path | Automation Path (0.0–2.0) | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | Trade Ideas, TC2000, TOS |
| Strategy/Bot Sophistication | Strategy/Bot Sophistication (0.0–2.0) | 2.00 | 2.00 | 1.50 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaTrader |
| Operational Assurance | Operational Assurance (0.0–1.0) | – | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | TrendSpider |
Trade Ideas scores very high on automation path + sophistication, consistent with my audit notes about Brokerage Plus enabling broker-connected automation workflows. The gap is operational assurance: I did not record an explicit public SLA/credit-style uptime promise for Trade Ideas in the notes used for this dataset.
So what? Systematic traders benefit—especially those comfortable with “alert → strategy → broker-linked execution” workflows. Risk-conscious traders should still treat automation as a controlled layer (position sizing, constraints, kill-switch logic) rather than “hands-off autopilot.”
AI & Algo Index
Trade Ideas earns 4.50 vs 2.00 median, one of the widest gaps in the entire benchmark set. In practical terms, it is not simply a scanner with “AI marketing.” It is built around AI-driven strategy generation and signal delivery (Holly AI is positioned as a core premium feature).
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithmic Intelligence & AI Tier Index | Sum of Algo Depth, AI Layer & Transparency Points | 4.50 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | TrendSpider |
| Algo Depth | Algo Depth (0.0–2.0) | 2 | 2.00 | 1.50 | 1.0 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, Tickeron, Seeking Alpha |
| AI Layer | AI Layer (0.0–2.0) | 1.5 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | TrendSpider |
| Transparency | Transparency (0.0–1.0) | 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.0 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, MetaStock, MetaTrader, Stock Rover, Motley Fool, Seeking Alpha, ChartMill, Portfolio123 |
Test results (AI index components):
- AI & Algo Index: 4.50 (High 5.00 | Median 2.00 | Low 1.0)
- B1 Algo Depth: 2.00 / 2.00 (advanced applied strategy logic)
- B2 AI Layer: 1.50 / 2.00 (ML/AI scoring as a core feature, not just assistive UX)
- B3 Transparency: 1.00 / 1.00 (methodology/validation artifacts present in the audit framework)
- AI Reasoning Tier Verified: Quantitative reasoning.
Trade Ideas is elite here, and my audit notes attribute this to a real “system” (Holly AI-style simulation, signal generation, and applied quantitative logic). It is not a superficial AI wrapper; it behaves like a purpose-built decision engine.
So what? If you want systematic idea generation that adapts to market regimes, Trade Ideas is one of the few retail tools that has been lab-tested as genuinely AI-forward. If you refuse AI signals on principle, you’re paying for a core capability you won’t trust.
Alert Speed
Alert performance is strong: 4.00 vs 3.67 median. The nuance is that Trade Ideas is exceptional on concurrency and streaming, but weaker on “alert stream richness” relative to the benchmark rubric.
Trade Ideas documents email/SMS delivery for Alert Window alerts (beta), with explicit constraints (limited symbols and message frequency).
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alert Trigger Latency & Delivery Speed | Average of Concurrent Alerts, Alert Streams Richness & Alert Speed Rating Scores | 4.00 | 4.67 | 3.67 | 2.30 | TradingView |
| Concurrent Alerts | How many concurrent alerts (1 point per 50, to a max of 5 points) | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, TC2000, MetaStock, Benzinga Pro, Finviz |
| Concurrent Alert Count | – | Unlimited | 2000.00 | 875.00 | 400.0 | Trade Ideas, MetaStock, Benzinga Pro, Finviz, TOS, VectorVest, MetaTrader, Tickeron |
| Alert Streams Richness | Email, webhook, SMS, app alert. 1 point per stream, max 5 points. | 2.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | TrendSpider |
| Alert Speed Rating | – | 5.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | TradingView, Trade Ideas, Benzinga Pro, VectorVest, Scanz |
Trade Ideas’ alerting is extremely fast in my audit notes (real-time event streaming is the design goal). The compromise is delivery channel richness: it’s not competing with webhook-heavy ecosystems on “number of streams,” but it is optimized for speed inside the platform.
So what? If your workflow is “stream alerts and act,” Trade Ideas is built for it. If you require multiple delivery routes (webhooks, extensive mobile push variants, complex routing), you may need a secondary alerting layer.
Trade Signal Quality
Trade Signal Quality is the headline: 5.00 vs 0.00 median. Most competitors either do not deliver audited, specific trade signals as a core product or offer only generic gauges. Trade Ideas is structurally different: AI-driven signals and strategy outputs are central to the Premium value proposition.
This is a clear strength. My audit framing for Trade Ideas is that signals are not an accessory feature—they are the product, tightly connected to scanning and regime-based strategy selection.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signal Alpha & Predictive Efficacy | Rating | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Trade Ideas, Tickeron, Stock Rover, Motley Fool, Seeking Alpha |
Test results (signal rubric):
- Signal Alpha & Predictive Efficacy: 5.00 (High 5.00 | Median 0.00 | Low 0.0)
- 5 points for audited specific trade signals (vs 2.5 for generic gauges)
Related feature-model scores (supporting evidence in the dataset):
- Buy & Sell Signals (core feature score): 4.00
- Stock Selection (premium feature score): 5.00
- AI & Algorithmic Analysis (premium feature score): 5.00
So what? If you want actionable, systematized trade ideas rather than “tools that help you decide,” Trade Ideas is one of the rare platforms that scores perfectly in this category. If you only trade discretionary charts, you will not realize this edge.
Broker Connectivity & Ecosystem Depth
Broker Connectivity scores 2.40 vs 1.55 median—above average but still not strong —and the weakest sub-score is “Broker Integration.” The product reality is: Trade Ideas supports broker-linked workflows (notably via Brokerage+), but it is not a broad multi-broker ecosystem.
Trade Ideas publishes Brokerage+ connection guidance for Interactive Brokers and E*TRADE, and also clarifies some feature limitations on the web version.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asset & Data Coverage Index | Average of Live Trading, Broker Integration, Asset & Data Coverage Scored | 2.40 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 0.70 | TradingView, MetaTrader |
| Live Trading | 5 Points | 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 0.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, Trade Ideas, TC2000, TOS, MetaTrader, eSignal, Scanz |
| Total number of brokers integrated | Count | 2 | 1200.00 | 2.00 | 0.0 | MetaTrader |
| Broker Integration | 0.1 point for every 1 broker to max 5 points | 0.20 | 5.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | TradingView, MetaTrader |
| Asset & Data Coverage | Stocks, Options, FX, USA Exchanges, International Exchanges – 1 Point Each | 2.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | TradingView, TrendSpider, MetaStock, MetaTrader |
Trade Ideas supports live trading, but its integration footprint is narrower than that of platforms that act as broad broker hubs. In my audit notes, it’s best understood as “high-performance signal + execution for a limited set,” not “connect to everything.”
So what? If you are an IBKR or E*TRADE user, Trade Ideas can support direct integration with your account. If you need broad broker choice or documented execution-latency guarantees, treat Trade Ideas as upstream discovery/signals and execute via your broker platform.
Portfolio Tool Performance
Portfolio Tool Performance is weak: 2.10 vs 2.80 median, consistent with Trade Ideas being a trading cockpit rather than a portfolio intelligence suite.
Trade Ideas is not positioned as a portfolio-health analytics platform in my audit notes. If you need correlation matrices, dividend projection, Monte Carlo, and deep risk reporting, the portfolio specialists win decisively.
| Test | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio Health & Risk Analytics | 2.10 | 4.80 | 2.80 | 2.00 | Stock Rover, Portfolio123 |
Test results (portfolio analytics):
- Portfolio Health & Risk Analytics score: 2.10 (High 4.80 | Median 2.80 | Low 2.0)
- Health check & reporting depth: 22/80 critical metrics (27.5%)
- Test note: Portfolio health analytics is not a core capability.
So what? Long-term investors should pair Trade Ideas with a dedicated portfolio platform. Active traders running smaller baskets intraday will care far less.
Financial News Speed & Depth
Financial News scores 1.00 vs. the median of 2.30, a clear weakness within the rubric you defined. The key nuance: the dataset shows Trade Ideas can be fast on “news scanning,” but the broader “news depth” feature checklist (chart overlays, watchlist news, provider depth, news alerts, filtering) is where it loses points.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial News Speed & Quality Rating | 100% Weight – 5 points | 1.00 | 5.00 | 2.30 | 0.00 | MetaStock, Benzinga Pro, eSignal, Scanz |
| Seconds of delay between primary wire feeds (Bloomberg/Reuters) and the app. | – | 5s – 15s | – | – | – | MetaStock |
Trade Ideas can be fast on headline appearance (my audit notes frame it as day-trader-optimized), but your scoring rubric weights “news infrastructure depth” (providers, filtering, alerts, watchlist linkage), where dedicated news terminals/products dominate.
So what? If you are a catalyst/news trader, I would not rely on Trade Ideas as your primary news terminal. Use it as the discovery/signal layer and pair with a dedicated real-time news product.
Community Utility Index (CUI)
Community Utility is excellent: 4.75 vs 3.25 median, close to High (5.00). For complex trading software, community quality isn’t fluff—it directly reduces onboarding time and increases repeatability through shared configurations and playbooks.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community Utility Index | Average of Active Community Size & Quality of Community Contribution Scores | 4.75 | 5.00 | 3.25 | 1.80 | TradingView, MetaTrader |
| Active Community Size | Active Users rating | 4.50 | 5.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | TradingView, MetaTrader |
| Quality of Community Contribution | Quality of IP rating | 5.00 | 5.00 | 3.50 | 1.50 | Trader Ideas, Seeking Alpha |
Trade Ideas scores extremely well because the community is “trading room” driven. Traders meet every day to learn and trade together. In my audit notes, this is less about social posting and more about high-quality IP.
So what? If you want to learn by using proven scan templates and community-vetted workflows, Trade Ideas compounds faster than tools with weak communities.
Support Infrastructure & SLA Audit
Support scores 4.50 vs 3.75 median. For a platform with automation and complex scanning logic, support quality directly reduces operational downtime and “false bug” time sinks.
| Test | Calculation | Trade Ideas | High | Median | Low | Category Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support SLA Audit: Time-to-Human Benchmarks | Average of Support Communication Channels & Support Response Time Scores | 4.50 | 5.00 | 3.75 | 1.00 | TC2000 |
| Support Communication Channels | Communication Channels rating | 4.00 | 5.00 | 3.50 | 1.00 | TC2000, TOS |
| Support Response Times | Response Times rating | 4.00 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 1.00 | TC2000 |
| Stated SLA & Tested Outcomes | – | Scheduled/Live | – | – | – | TrendSpider |
So what? If Trade Ideas is mission-critical to your day trading, above-median support is a real risk reducer. If you use it casually, you’ll still appreciate the training ecosystem, but you won’t fully realize the benefit.
www.liberatedstocktrader.com (Article Sourced Website)
#Trade #Ideas #58Point #Lab #Test #Audit #Benchmarks