2 years with Interactive Brokers as primary broker.
time for honest review.
python algo trading perspective.
why IB for algo trading #
chose IB january 2023 for 3 reasons:
best API documentation.
global market access.
low commissions ($0.65/contract futures, $0.25/contract options).
alternatives considered:
Tastyworks: options-focused, weaker API.
TradeStation: good API, higher fees.
TD Ameritrade: API getting deprecated (now Schwab).
IB won on API quality + global access.
the API experience #
ib_insync python library:
clean wrapper around IB’s TWS API.
async/await support (critical for my setup).
real-time data streaming.
connection stability:
99.7% uptime 2 years.
3 disconnections total (all during TWS updates).
reconnect logic handles automatically.
execution quality:
avg fill within 100ms.
slippage tracking: 2.0 ticks avg with IB.
comparable to other brokers before chicago colo.
data quality:
real-time quotes solid.
historical data sometimes gaps (use Polygon.io instead).
overall API: 9/10
clean, stable, well-documented.
learned a lot from NexusFi discussions about optimizing IB API connections for automated trading.
commission structure breakdown #
futures (ES, NQ):
$0.65 per contract.
312 contracts traded 2024.
total futures commissions 2024: $203
options (SPX, QQQ):
$0.25 per contract ($0.50 round trip).
estimate 180 option contracts traded 2024.
total options commissions 2024: $45
crypto:
don’t trade crypto through IB (use Coinbase/Kraken).
annual commission total: ~$250
vs alternatives:
Tastyworks: $1/contract options = $180 vs IB $45.
TradeStation: $1.50/contract futures = $468 vs IB $203.
IB saves ~$400/year in commissions.
worth it.
margin rates #
current margin rate: 5.83% (tier 1: $0-$100k)
my usage:
rarely use margin.
occasional overnight futures positions.
2024 margin interest paid: $47
negligible cost.
benefit:
portfolio margin available (not using yet).
allows complex option strategies.
platform quirks #
trader workstation (TWS):
ugly AF interface (looks like windows 95).
crashes occasionally during updates.
but:
API access stable (what matters).
don’t use TWS for trading (all python).
gateway mode:
headless API server.
runs on chicago colo server.
zero crashes 9 months.
preferred over TWS for automation.
customer service #
used 3 times 2 years:
margin call question (answered in 20 min).
API connection issue (resolved same day).
tax document question (answered next day).
response times acceptable.
phone support: haven’t used (API issues resolved via chat).
data fees #
IB charges monthly data fees:
US equity real-time: $10/month.
futures real-time: $4.50/month.
annual data cost: $174
vs alternatives:
Polygon.io subscription: $200/month ($2,400/year).
IB data fees negligible compared.
but:
historical data quality lower.
use Polygon for backtesting.
IB for real-time execution only.
security & trust #
regulatory:
SEC registered, FINRA member.
SIPC insured ($500k).
account security:
2FA required.
IP whitelist available.
trust level: high
held $400k+ without concern.
what i’d change #
historical data quality:
gaps in minute-level data.
forces external data provider (Polygon).
TWS interface:
embarrassingly ugly.
needs redesign (won’t happen).
mobile app:
clunky for monitoring.
use for account value check only.
API rate limits:
50 requests/second.
hit occasionally during rapid development.
comparing to other brokers #
vs Tastyworks:
IB wins: API quality, commissions, global access.
Tastyworks wins: options-focused tools, UI.
vs TradeStation:
IB wins: commissions, global access.
TradeStation wins: built-in backtesting, charting.
vs Coinbase (crypto):
IB loses: crypto selection weak.
Coinbase wins: dedicated crypto platform.
use IB for traditional, Coinbase for crypto.
2 year stats #
account growth:
jan 2023: $400k starting.
jan 2025: $437.8k current.
commissions paid:
2023: ~$280
2024: ~$250
total: $530 in 2 years
on $400k+ account = 0.13% total cost.
negligible.
would i switch? #
no.
IB API quality too good.
commissions too low.
global access valuable (even if not using yet).
staying with IB.
for algo traders considering IB #
pros:
best API documentation.
ib_insync python library excellent.
low commissions ($0.65 futures, $0.25 options).
global market access.
99.7% uptime.
portfolio margin available.
cons:
TWS interface ugly (doesn’t matter for algo trading).
historical data gaps (use external provider).
data fees monthly (but low vs alternatives).
verdict: highly recommend
if you’re coding python algos, IB is top choice.
commission savings alone worth it.
resources that helped #
ib_insync documentation:
https://ib-insync.readthedocs.io/
complete examples, async support.
IB API docs:
official TWS API reference.
dense but thorough.
NexusFi broker discussions:
learned optimization tricks from experienced algo traders.
reddit r/algotrading:
IB API troubleshooting threads.
tonight (january 23, 2:34am) #
2 years with Interactive Brokers.
API: 9/10 (clean, stable, well-documented).
commissions: $250/year (vs $650+ alternatives).
uptime: 99.7% (3 disconnections total).
staying with IB.
highly recommend for python algo traders.
2:34am thursday. Interactive Brokers 2-year review. API 9/10 (ib_insync library excellent, 99.7% uptime). commissions $250/year futures+options (saves $400 vs alternatives). margin rate 5.83%, used $47 interest 2024. quirks: TWS ugly, historical data gaps (use Polygon), monthly data fees $174/year. security: SEC/FINRA/SIPC, held $400k+ without concern. verdict: highly recommend for python algo traders. commission savings + API quality = staying with IB.
-AK