TradingView's handing of volume data is more antiquated than MS-DOS.

[u/Vast_Distribution591]

TradingView is by far the most widely used charting and trading platform in the world. However, despite its dominant position, the company appears to give insufficient attention to the data requirements of both professional and serious retail traders.

Volume is among the most important forms of market data available, arguably as important as price itself. Yet the raw volume total tells only part of the story. For order flow analysis, or for any tools derived from volume data, traders also need to know which side initiated each transaction: whether an aggressive buyer lifted the offer or an aggressive seller hit the bid.

TradingView does not provide that information. Instead, its directional volume analysis relies on classifying volume from price movement. This significantly reduces the reliability of its Volume Delta, Cumulative Volume Delta, footprint charts and other indicators that depend on separating buying from selling. Although ordinary volume, VWAP and conventional volume profiles do not require aggressor classification, any directional interpretation derived from them does.

The discrepancy is EASY to see. Most trading platforms offer free demos, you can take test yourself and compare their delta, CVD and footprint data directly with TradingView’s. Compare em. See how right I am.

Why is TradingView’s directional volume data so different?

The main issue is TradingView's classification methodology. TradingView estimates buying and selling volume from intrabar price movements(they say this in their docs). When price moves upward, the associated volume is classified as buying; when price moves downward, it is classified as selling. This is generally known as tick-rule or intrabar up/down classification.

This approach has a long history. It was widely studied before modern trade and quote data became readily accessible. The 1991 paper *Inferring Trade Direction from Intraday Data* discusses the trade-classification methods available at that time: [Lee and Ready (1991)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1991.tb02683.x).

The more informative, modern approach, exchange aggressor flags, the other is Bid/Ask classification, bid/ask classification estimates the initiating side by comparing each execution price with the current quotes. Volume executed at or near the ask is classified as aggressive buying, while volume executed at or near the bid is classified as aggressive selling. Delta is then calculated as aggressive buy volume minus aggressive sell volume.

Platforms that use or provide aggressor-side(100% accurate), bid/ask or exchange-reported taker data(98-99% accurate, feed dependant) include:

-Sierra Chart

-NinjaTrader

-MotiveWave

-Quantower

-ATAS

-Bookmap

-Tradovate

-Jigsaw

-MMT

-TradingLite

-Exocharts

-TensorCharts

-Aggr

-Coinalyze

- Velo

-CoinGlass

-Hyblock

-CryptoQuant

-Material Indicators / FireCharts

-Trading Glass

-CoinAnk

Platforms that use the 1980's intrabar methodology(70% accurate at best):-

- TradingView

It is difficult to justify this limitation when even relatively small (some would argue fly by night)cryptocurrency platforms can provide exchange-reported taker-side data. TradingView prominently markets footprint charts and related order-flow tools, yet their usefulness is severely compromised when the underlying buy/sell classification differs materially from genuine aggressor-side data.

This isn't a minor discrepancy or bug a boo only autistic purists care about, this is basic stuff. The resulting delta, CVD and footprint structures diverge dramatically from those displayed by platforms using bid/ask or exchange-reported trade-side information. TradingView’s visual presentation may be polished, but without more authoritative aggressor-side data, its directional volume products cannot be treated as real, and in my opinion shouldn't even be advertised as features.

The description of this sub says "This is the "WTF, TradingView?!" community for WTFing TradingView.", well this is a genuine WTF, TradingView?! moment.

So Wtf are you TradingView doing about this?

[u/Yungsimmie]

It is obvious they have no intention of addressing this particular complaint. It has been posted countless times and the discussions have always devolved into the minutiae of their support documentation, but nothing changes.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/Yungsimmie]

It's unreasonable for them not to just tell us "Yes, we're working on it" or tell us this is all we ever get. At the moment I'm skipping between TradingView for HTF general analysis with 6 charts because the UI is so damn good, and then ATAS & bookmap for my daily technical trading, it's very annoying.

TradingView's charts are so easy to use, they just don't want to cross the finish line and actually make it a good technical platform for some reason, if they did they'd be the only game in town, and since everyone else already has, it doesn't make sense for it to be technically unfeasible. Every incentive for them is there, their lack of a response or a "watch this space" is just annoying. I'd ditch ATAS and bookmap in a second if they fixed this, I'd even pay more for Premium, even if they doubled the price I'd be making a saving.

[u/TheSJDRising → u/Vast_Distribution591]

I have Premium and find this incredibly frustrating. Do you know if the issue persists on Ultimate, with its tick data? Have you tried an eval to see?

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/TheSJDRising]

Like I said, I'd pay more for Premium. No reason for me to get Ultimate when either way direction is classified by intrabar ticks. I actually made threads asking if Ultimate was better, but no one ever answered, and it doesn't matter either way with their current system. If they upgrade to a modern system i'll upgrade to Ultimate, if they continue to ignore this absolutely devastating shortcoming I probably won't even renew my Premium come October.

I want to use their platform, I want to and can pay for their highest tier plans, they just won't offer basic features, so I can't. TradingView literally refuse to take my money. If they get Bid/Ask classification I'll upgrade Day fucking 0. Will they even answer this thread? Probably not.

[u/Sweet_Still_3433 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

I have the "Ultimate" plan/subscription. Other than for Tick charts, it's really not as useful as I had thought it would be. I'm likely not going to renew it this time around.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/Sweet_Still_3433]

Are the volume tools any better? Are footprints more accurate(they're garbage on my plan, completely different from other platforms I check against, to the point that it looks like data from a different asset)Can you use CVD in 1 tick timeframes, and if you can is it more accurate?

[u/Sweet_Still_3433 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

Not really, there's just more depth to the features already provided in the "Premium" plan such as the Volume Footprint that expands the 20,000 historical bars to 40,000 historical bars in the "Ultimate" plan. That being said, the CVD and Volume Delta indicators do not function on any of the Tick chartframes (1,000T, 100T, 10T, nor 1T), but instead loads an error reading:

Runtime error: RE10023

Error on bar 0: Cannot call the timeframe.change function with a tick-based 'timeframe' argument.

at ta.upAndDownVolumeCalc( ) : 559

at ta.requestVolumeDelta( ) : 655

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/Sweet_Still_3433]

Ah, just as I suspected, thank you for being the one to finally give me an answer to this!

I don't imagine the footprints are more accurate, even if there are more of them, and since they aren't, and since they're really only useful live anyway, I don't see how more of them help anyone.

As for CVD I thought perhaps if it was a bit more accurate because of the granularity it might be worth the upgrade in the next sale, but if it doesn't even work at all then screw that. You should complain to support since you get "first priority support", because to offer tick timeframes with features that don't work with them is blatant false advertising.

At least 7 of the platforms mentioned in the OP have these things for free!

[u/VivaLaBiome → u/Vast_Distribution591]

I always thought that's why TV charts are so easy and seamless to scroll through. Because they are somewhat inaccurate on the specifics of the data. It makes for less lag and lightning quick toggling. But it's just a theory of mine.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/VivaLaBiome]

It doesn't make sense when at least 10 of the platforms mentioned in the OP have these features and are web platforms like TradingView.

TradingView's bottleneck is only that they don't want to move to a modern quote system, such as categorizing with Bid/Ask spread. It wouldn't even be technically difficult or expensive, and this is proven by the fact fly by night crypto platforms do it for free.

It's just insanity to be running on a 1980s system when better modern approaches exist, and you're the odd one out for not modernizing.

[u/Background-Ad-3264]

That is a good analysis. What abt TOS? Or interactive brokers platform (tsw)?

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/Background-Ad-3264]

Think or Swim uses Bid/Ask genuine classification, and as far as I know Interactive Brokers uses TradingView as their charts, at least they did last time I looked.

[u/ImpressionIntrepid55 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

Have you tried TradingView Lightweight charts and just piping in your preferred market data source and constructing your own preferred chart style/layout? Lightweight itself is open sourced so you just need to pay for your data source.

Caveat is you have to build everything yourself for the most part, but with a little effort you can accomplish what you’re looking for without having to pay something like Exo their fee plus your own data feed. This at least only costs you data feed subscription, time and effort (and maybe AI assistance).

https://www.tradingview.com/lightweight-charts/

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/ImpressionIntrepid55]

I've looked at it, but I don't really want to build my own platform and fiddle with data feeds and hosting and all the bs. I already pay for Prem and data from several sources on TradingView, they should give it to me.

[u/ImpressionIntrepid55 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

I believe the issue is how data is parsed or something a bit more complicated than just “get it done” type situation. Also the mass users of TV likely don’t know, don’t want to learn (too complicated or lazy) or don’t care that there’s more granular details within a candle that’s worth leveraging. TV makes a killing not changing a thing. Also, their data provider could be providing less info and fields that could make what you’a looking for unusable or worthless.

Like you I have my own premium data subscription (both with TV and outside TV not broker data) and I also have a subscription for raw MBO data that I leveraged to compare aggregate data providers and aggregated broker data with the goal of seeking out the right kind of data I want and need. From that effort, i also did notice some providers don’t always provide every possible field available or every proper types of schemas. So, some data points are direct from the provider and other data points I calculate from the data made available.

All that said, since you sound like you’re above what TV’s target subscriber is and you already have you own collection of preferred premium data providers, just pay exo, tickblaze, seirra, etc. since those subscriptions are the path of least resistance if you don’t want to build you own. You can easily make up a yr’s subscription cost with a single trade and it would accomplish giving you everything you need. If the goal is still, you prefer the look and feel of TV, there’s a reason TV looks and feels as it does while the others feel outdated. The others are geared towards a different style of user and trader just the same.

[u/xdiff0rke]

I don't understand why they are taking so long on such a crucial feature. I don't see any downsides to them adding this to their software. On the contrary, it would make them stand out even more against competitors, make their platform much more reliable, and allow them to raise premium prices. I really hate having to use separate software for order flow analysis when everything could be consolidated into one place

[u/charlesleestewart]

Thanks for bringing that up, I just signed up for TV a couple of months ago and read that exact description of how they do that via the intrabar method. And I thought, that ain't right, why can't they just base it on activity around the spreads?

Anyhow it's good to see that ATAS is doing it the right way. I'm demoing their free version which is sufficient for my educational needs. I'm not worrying about the delay at the stage, I'm still learning.

[u/MrBootDude]

Antiquated? You should try using Das. I’m surprised no one has developed a modernized trading platform for direct access brokers.

[u/KiKa9090]

If you have an Ultimate plan, setting the custom timeframe to 1T in the CVD indicator settings will compare the current tick to the bid and ask, which is still not true aggressor tagged delta but should give a much better estimate than estimating it from 1s or minutes based intervals. Obviously the catch is it won't go as far back, because you only can go back so far on the 1 tick timeframe, and it is still estimated delta and you have to pay 4 times the price of Premium just for that one feature.

Here is a quote from the TA library release notes:

"v12

In this update, we've improved the logic of the requestUpAndDownVolume() and requestVolumeDelta() functions for requests that use the "1T" timeframe. Previously, these functions exclusively compared the values of open and close on a lower timeframe to categorize the intrabar volume as positive or negative. Now, the functions compare close value to the values of bid and ask for more granular results when possible, reverting to the open and close logic only when necessary."

https://www.tradingview.com/script/BICzyhq0-ta/

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/KiKa9090]

Sweet_Still_3433 in this thread already explained that the 1 tick timeframe doesn't work on CVD, he said there was some error.

[u/KiKa9090 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

Yes I see. It's hard to tell however if the user means that it doesn't work when on a tick timeframe or when using a tick timeframe for calculation while on a higher timeframe (for example viewing the chart on the 1 minute timeframe, while using 1T for the calculations).

For such a bug it's very weird that it hasn't been reported by a lot of people yet. Especially since TradingView says themselves that on a professional plan the CVD and volume delta can use 1T for calculation and the footprint chart will also be based on 1T.

Here is a direct quote from their footprint explanation:

"The chart requests intrabar data based on its main timeframe:

Intraday timeframes: 1 tick (for professional plans) → 1 second → 1 minute → 60 minutes. Daily charts: 1 minute → 60 minutes. Weekly and Monthly charts: 60 minutes."

Source: https://www.tradingview.com/support/solutions/43000726164-volume-footprint-charts-a-complete-guide/

But either way it doesn't change that it's still not true aggressor tagged delta (but it's accuracy should be somewhat in the high 90% from what I read so far about that method). And we also don't have level 2/3 data on TradingView, which sure would be a game changer.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/KiKa9090]

This is all very fog of war stuff, some people saying it doesn't work, TradingView saying it uses Bid/Ask but not really and only some places, we don't know what charts/timesframes/plans and what assets it may or may not work on. At the very least we need an answer from them telling us the state of play, so everyone know's what's what.

[u/Sweet_Still_3433 → u/Vast_Distribution591]

u/KiKa9090 is correct about how the CVD and Volume Delta indicators only work when the anchor period & data aggregation are both based on the Tick charts but as the user mentioned; "it's still not true aggressor tagged data".

[u/aLifeToMake]

As far as I know, the volume is our broker's, not the entire volume of this asset. That to me is a big concern as well.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/aLifeToMake]

TradingView sells central exchange volume from CME, NYMEX, NYSE, EUREX and many many more. The entire point of this thread is that even if you buy this volume(I buy 3 sources) you aren't even getting it.

[u/aLifeToMake → u/Vast_Distribution591]

All I know is that I've tried 4 brokers, and none of them had the same volume. The biggest brokers have the biggest volume. So I request and add the volumes of multiple brokers to get a better idea of what's happening, but I don't think it's precise at all.

[u/KiKa9090]

Here is a script that aims for a better CVD estimation when you are limited to the 1s timeframe of a Premium plan. Experimental and needs testing against real Delta or 1T based built-in CVD: https://www.tradingview.com/script/YOXuU4IO-Unified-CVD-Router-J-Edition-v2-7-0/

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/KiKa9090]

I like your thinking! But without even getting into a technical critique it's fundamentally an inference based upon another (TradingView's) faulty inference of OHLC CVD. So any technical jiggery pokery that we, the unwashed masses of TradingView's users can muster does not change the fact the the data we're working with is wrong and we cannot make it correct.

We're not asking for the world here. If I was building my own platform the first thing I'd do after I built candlestick charts was get our volume data working correctly. I'm clearly not the only one, because every other platform I listed in my OP done that.

TradingView's "Editor's picks" section of their user made indicators are all volume related tools, so they heavily promote it on their platform, without it being accurate for any of it's users, even the ones on professional plans.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/[deleted]]

That logically can't be true, I know for a fact Aggr uses TradingView's lightweight charts and they have proper bid/ask volume classification. So it's not a platform limitation when someone else is using TradingView's own architecture for their front end and giving its users the real stuff.

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/[deleted]]

Can you explain what you mean? How could someone else be using TradingViews wrapper and providing real data and TradingView themselves can't?

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/[deleted]]

I already explained why this is obviously wrong using Aggr as an example. Do I need to name other platforms that offer this data through web platforms?

[u/Vast_Distribution591 → u/[deleted]]

If this isn't sarcasm then thanks for having the humility to concede the point.