Rithmic and CQG are more than price feeds. Their services connect market data and trading applications, but the usable combination depends on the broker or prop firm, account phase, exchange permissions and software connection. A provider logo alone does not establish order-book detail, trading access or total cost.

The useful choice is therefore which supported connection meets your requirements, not which brand wins universally. This comparison uses official documentation; it does not report BullTraders latency measurements or first-hand platform testing.

Separate the feed, platform and account

A practical compatibility check has three parts:

  • Market data: what quotes, trades, depth and history the connection delivers.
  • Trading application: the charts, order-entry interface and analysis tools you use.
  • Account and order routing: where orders go and which trading permissions apply.

CQG's WebAPI documentation describes both streaming data and exchange gateways for order execution. Rithmic's R Trader Pro documentation describes a trading application with DOM, live charting, order entry and server-side risk controls. Neither is adequately described as a price-only pipe.

Real-time exchange data also does not prove an account sends live orders. For example, Topstep explicitly describes its Trading Combine and Express Funded Account as simulated. Establish the account phase separately from the data source.

Rithmic vs. CQG at a glance

Decision point Rithmic CQG
Individual-order data Rithmic lists CME MBO; Quantower documents an MBO setting for its Rithmic connection. CQG's FIX documentation describes MBO as well as MBP. Availability in a particular retail connection is a separate question.
Concrete platform example Quantower supports direct Rithmic access and an R Trader Pro plugin mode. Quantower documents an AMP/CQG connection with its own symbol and history settings.
Documented product example R Trader Pro includes charting and order entry. CQG's API can connect external applications to data and order routing; that is not the same product as a particular CQG front end.
Exchange access Not CME-only: the official directory also lists Eurex, with access limited to customers of specified organizations. Check the exact market and account entitlement, not a headline exchange count.
Speed comparison No independently measured end-to-end result established here. No independently measured end-to-end result established here.
Cost comparison Obtain the account-specific data, software and routing schedule. Obtain the account-specific data, software and routing schedule.

Primary documentation: Rithmic exchange directory, CQG FIX market-data request, Quantower/Rithmic and Quantower/AMP-CQG.

MBO vs. MBP: detail, not a trading signal

Market by Price groups displayed quantity at each price. Market by Order supplies individual-order detail. CME's MBO explanation describes anonymous order identifiers, individual sizes and queue-position information; its MBP format provides total quantity and order count at each price level.

That makes MBO relevant when an analysis tool needs individual resting orders rather than only aggregate depth. It does not identify an institution or retail trader. CME explicitly says MBO contains no customer-identifiable information. A large displayed order is not evidence that a price level will hold, and a collection of small orders is not evidence that it will break.

Avoid the shortcut “Rithmic is MBO, CQG is MBP.” Rithmic advertises MBO, and Quantower documents how to enable it in its Rithmic connection. But CQG FIX documentation also defines an aggregated-book option for MBP and a non-aggregated option for MBO. That is evidence of a CQG interface capability, not proof that every CQG broker login or third-party chart exposes it.

Before choosing, confirm the exchange, instrument, depth entitlement and the application feature that consumes the data. CQG's subscription documentation explicitly makes delivered detail dependent on trader entitlements, data availability and exchange limitations.

Latency: compare the whole connection

A vendor's internal processing claim is not a measurement from your device to an exchange acknowledgement. Display refresh, data arrival, order submission and fill timing are different observations. This review has not established a latency winner or a profitability benefit for either provider.

There is a useful documented implementation difference: CQG WebAPI supports market-data collapsing under specified settings or when a client cannot keep up. Its documentation also describes disabling collapsing, with the possibility of disconnection if internal queues reach their limits. This is configurable API behaviour, not proof that every CQG feed always aggregates updates in the same way. See CQG market-data subscription behaviour.

Rithmic markets its delivery as unthrottled in its exchange directory. That provider claim does not establish faster fills in a particular prop account. Software configuration and the permitted connection still need to be evaluated together.

Compatibility: a concrete Quantower example

Quantower documents both connections, but they are not interchangeable settings:

Rithmic: Its connection guide distinguishes direct access from plugin mode. Plugin mode requires R Trader Pro running locally, plugins enabled, and matching server/account settings. The guide also documents enabling MBO and displaying it in the DOM.

AMP/CQG: Its separate guide documents CQG-specific symbol lookup and a continuation-history setting. That guide restricts continuous-futures history to live accounts and gives history limits. Do not extend that brokerage-specific documentation to every prop-firm CQG login or every historical-data service.

Multiple connections: Quantower's connection manager supports simultaneous connections under specified paid licences. Therefore, “you cannot run both feeds in one platform instance” is not a valid provider-wide rule. Application licensing and each account's session permissions still matter.

These are documented examples, not a compatibility endorsement for an unlisted firm. Confirm the exact application version and broker or prop-firm connection before relying on an existing licence or workspace.

What does each connection cost?

There is no account-independent Rithmic-versus-CQG price verdict here. Compare like-for-like cost categories:

  • Exchange data: the required exchanges and depth, and the applicable professional or non-professional classification.
  • Software: the application licence and any feature package.
  • Connectivity: any platform-access, API or additional-session charges.
  • Trading: commissions, clearing charges and any routing charge, with its billing unit clearly stated.
  • Programme: evaluation billing and the separate terms that apply after qualification.

These are questions for the actual account schedule, not a claim that every item is charged separately. Confirm a charge's basis before comparing it: per side, per completed round trip, per contract or per month are not interchangeable.

Use the comparison tool for covered account options, then confirm the selected programme and any software or data extras with the provider. Do not assume that included evaluation data remains included on a live account, or that a broker-specific waiver applies to a different legal entity or jurisdiction.

TopstepX is a separate alternative

A TopstepX account should not be labelled a CQG account. Topstep says it uses direct exchange market data. Its Quantower connection uses ProjectX with the TopstepX server for Trading Combine and Express Funded Accounts.

This is a useful third route when comparing platform requirements, but it does not make a Rithmic or CQG login portable to Topstep. See our TopstepX review for its chart, automation and account-phase limits.

Verdict: choose the supported workflow

Rithmic is a documented option for an eligible account whose software requires CME MBO, including Quantower's specific MBO integration. CQG is a documented option for supported data and order-routing workflows, including Quantower's AMP/CQG connection and CQG WebAPI integrations. Neither description is a universal recommendation.

Before choosing a prop programme or changing a connection, establish:

  1. The exact account version and whether trading is simulated or live.
  2. The supported platform, connection and required licence.
  3. The exchange and data entitlement, including MBO if needed.
  4. Historical-data and session limits that affect the workflow.
  5. Order-type support, automation permission and account-specific costs.

Then compare covered account options and confirm your eligibility and required connection with the provider. A supported, correctly scoped connection is a stronger basis for a decision than an unsourced promise of lower latency or cheaper trading.