Market review
n The 2016 Execution Management System Survey
clients and asset classes. So
for example, fund trading,
pairs trading and options
pricing are all identified by
one or more clients as desir-
able developments. However
none are widespread enough
in terms of mentions, to sug-
gest that the latent demand
for them is necessarily criti-
cal to a particular provider’s
success. Other requirements
focus on integration into
internal systems, whether
related to risk, compliance or
shown an improvement
since 2014, when a couple of
categories saw scores average
less than 5.0 (Good). The
two weakest areas of scoring
have been Product
Development and Handling
of New Versions/Releases.
Both these areas are impact-
ed to some extent by the
growth of business generally
and its increasing complexi-
ty. Many of the perceived
product developments are
quite specific to particular
changing providers in the
near future.
That the general level of
satisfaction deters most from
considering any change is
evident in the scores. Figure
1 shows a comparison of
scores in recent years covering the thirteen areas under
review. In eight areas scores
are higher than a year ago,
while in five they are lower.
Differences from one year to
the next are not large and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Post implementation
client service
Global client coverage
Low latency
FIX capabilities
Connectivity with internal
systems
Timeliness of implementing
updates
Number of types of
algorithms available
Number of direct connections
to venues
Number of asset classes covered
Number of connections to
different brokers
Percentage of respondents (each respondent named four important features)
2014
2015
2016
FIGURE 3: MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES
… Meanwhile very few small users of a single system appear
interested in changing providers in the near future.
