Pete, I've been running both QP2 and TC2000 for several months. Prior to that, I'd used QP1 exclusively for a couple of years. I've found that I've gravitated over to using TC2000 on a daily basis.
The QP2 scanning facility is a programmers dream. If you're looking to develop the ultimate trading system, it's probably what you want. It is strictly for the power user. I think you will find that all on this board who sing high praise have programming backgrounds.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to come up with a finite amount of trading candidates that meet certain screens, there's nothing like the EasyScan of TC2000. I now use it daily rather than QP2. A snap to use, very fast, and simple to tweak. It takes about 20 to 25 minutes to run my basic QP2 scans on my Pentium 166. Similar EasyScans get done in 2 to 3 minutes.
I like QP2's chart interface better. For one thing, I like price and volume bars in the same window. That's personal preference. I find myself switching back and forth between the programs to see how charts look on the QP2 screen. Maybe it's a comfort thing, after using it for so long.
By comparing charts between the 2 programs so much, I've also noticed that the TC2000 data seems to be more reliable. I guess QP changed data providers when they went from QP1 to QP2. My observation is that the current provider is clearly inferior to the previous one. I find that TC2000 picks up splits and symbol changes on the same day; QP2 misses many.
Since I don't have to choose one over the other, I'll continue to subscribe to both for now. If I HAD to choose, I'd sadly bid farewell to QP2.
Gary |
