Skip to main content

tastyworks vs interactive brokers - python algo trader comparison 2025

been using both for 18 months.

time for honest comparison.

python automation perspective.

my setup
#

tastyworks:

options trading (premium selling).

$180k allocated.

~40% of total capital.

interactive brokers:

everything else (futures, stocks, international).

$220k allocated.

~48% of total capital.

remaining: $56k crypto exchanges (coinbase/kraken/binance).

API comparison - python automation
#

interactive brokers (ib_insync):

pros:

  • clean python library (ib_insync).
  • real-time streaming data.
  • global markets access.
  • futures + options + stocks + forex.

cons:

  • TWS gateway required (resource hog).
  • occasional disconnects need handling.
  • API throttling on some endpoints.

tastyworks (unofficial API):

pros:

  • RESTful API (easier to work with).
  • options-focused (greeks, chains, spreads).
  • lower latency for options quotes.
  • no gateway required.

cons:

  • unofficial API (could break anytime).
  • US markets only.
  • limited futures support.
  • no forex.

verdict:

IB for serious multi-asset algo trading.

tastyworks for options-only automation.

i use both because specialized > generalist for options.

commissions comparison
#

interactive brokers:

options: $0.65/contract.

futures: $0.85/contract (ES/NQ).

stocks: $0.005/share ($1 minimum).

data feeds: $15/month (real-time).

tastyworks:

options: $1.00 to open, $0 to close.

futures: $1.25/contract.

stocks: $0 commissions.

data feeds: free real-time.

annual costs (my volume ~300 trades/year):

IB: ~$1,950 commissions + $180 data = $2,130/year.

tastyworks: ~$1,800 commissions + $0 data = $1,800/year.

difference: tastyworks saves $330/year.

not huge but adds up.

execution quality - slippage comparison
#

measured over 3 months (dec-feb):

interactive brokers:

avg slippage: 1.8 ticks (options).

avg slippage: 0.9 ticks (futures).

fill rate: 94%.

tastyworks:

avg slippage: 2.1 ticks (options).

fill rate: 91%.

IB wins on execution quality.

tastyworks slightly worse fills but not dealbreaker.

both acceptable for my strategies.

platform stability
#

interactive brokers:

TWS gateway crashes: 2x in 18 months.

API disconnects: ~6x in 18 months (reconnect logic required).

data feed issues: 1x (lasted 4 hours, switched to polygon backup).

uptime: 99.4%

tastyworks:

platform outages: 1x in 18 months (lasted 90 minutes).

API issues: 3x in 18 months (unofficial API risk).

data feed issues: 0x.

uptime: 99.7%

tastyworks more stable (surprising given unofficial API).

margin rates
#

interactive brokers:

tiered rates based on balance.

$100k-$1M: 5.83% (current).

excellent for portfolio margin.

tastyworks:

flat rate: 9.25% (current).

no portfolio margin (reg-t only).

IB wins massively on margin.

if you trade on margin frequently, IB saves thousands.

i don’t use margin much so less important.

python code examples
#

interactive brokers (ib_insync):

from ib_insync import *

# connect to TWS gateway
ib = IB()
ib.connect('127.0.0.1', 7497, clientId=1)

# get SPX options chain
spx = Index('SPX', 'CBOE')
chains = ib.reqSecDefOptParams(spx.symbol, '', spx.secType, spx.conId)

# filter to weekly expiration
weekly = [c for c in chains if 'W' in c.tradingClass]

# place iron condor (example)
def place_iron_condor(underlying, expiry, strikes):
    """
    Place 4-leg iron condor on SPX
    """
    contracts = [
        Option(underlying, expiry, strikes['put_buy'], 'P', 'SMART'),
        Option(underlying, expiry, strikes['put_sell'], 'P', 'SMART'),
        Option(underlying, expiry, strikes['call_sell'], 'C', 'SMART'),
        Option(underlying, expiry, strikes['call_buy'], 'C', 'SMART')
    ]

    # qualify contracts
    qualified = [ib.qualifyContracts(c)[0] for c in contracts]

    # create combo order
    combo = ComboOrder()
    combo.legs = [
        ComboLeg(qualified[0].conId, 1, 'BUY', 'SMART'),
        ComboLeg(qualified[1].conId, 1, 'SELL', 'SMART'),
        ComboLeg(qualified[2].conId, 1, 'SELL', 'SMART'),
        ComboLeg(qualified[3].conId, 1, 'BUY', 'SMART')
    ]

    # place order
    order = LimitOrder('BUY', 1, limit_price=2.50)
    trade = ib.placeOrder(combo, order)

    return trade

# real-time greeks streaming
def stream_greeks(contract):
    """
    Stream real-time greeks for options
    """
    ticker = ib.reqMktData(contract, '106', False, False)

    ib.sleep(2)  # wait for data

    return {
        'delta': ticker.modelGreeks.delta,
        'gamma': ticker.modelGreeks.gamma,
        'theta': ticker.modelGreeks.theta,
        'vega': ticker.modelGreeks.vega,
        'iv': ticker.modelGreeks.impliedVol
    }

# disconnect
ib.disconnect()

tastyworks (unofficial API via requests):

import requests
import json
from datetime import datetime, timedelta

class TastytradePythonAPI:
    def __init__(self, username, password):
        self.base_url = 'https://api.tastyworks.com'
        self.session = requests.Session()
        self.auth_token = None
        self.account_id = None

        # authenticate
        self._login(username, password)

    def _login(self, username, password):
        """
        Authenticate with tastyworks API
        """
        url = f'{self.base_url}/sessions'
        data = {
            'login': username,
            'password': password,
            'remember-me': True
        }

        response = self.session.post(url, json=data)
        response.raise_for_status()

        result = response.json()
        self.auth_token = result['data']['session-token']
        self.session.headers.update({
            'Authorization': self.auth_token
        })

        # get account info
        self._get_accounts()

    def _get_accounts(self):
        """
        Get account details
        """
        url = f'{self.base_url}/customers/me/accounts'
        response = self.session.get(url)
        response.raise_for_status()

        accounts = response.json()['data']['items']
        self.account_id = accounts[0]['account']['account-number']

    def get_option_chain(self, symbol, expiration_date=None):
        """
        Get options chain for symbol
        """
        url = f'{self.base_url}/option-chains/{symbol}/nested'

        params = {}
        if expiration_date:
            params['expiration-date'] = expiration_date

        response = self.session.get(url, params=params)
        response.raise_for_status()

        return response.json()['data']['items']

    def place_iron_condor(self, symbol, expiry, strikes, price_limit):
        """
        Place iron condor order
        """
        legs = [
            {
                'instrument-type': 'Equity Option',
                'symbol': symbol,
                'quantity': 1,
                'action': 'Buy to Open',
                'option-type': 'P',
                'strike-price': str(strikes['put_buy']),
                'expiration-date': expiry
            },
            {
                'instrument-type': 'Equity Option',
                'symbol': symbol,
                'quantity': 1,
                'action': 'Sell to Open',
                'option-type': 'P',
                'strike-price': str(strikes['put_sell']),
                'expiration-date': expiry
            },
            {
                'instrument-type': 'Equity Option',
                'symbol': symbol,
                'quantity': 1,
                'action': 'Sell to Open',
                'option-type': 'C',
                'strike-price': str(strikes['call_sell']),
                'expiration-date': expiry
            },
            {
                'instrument-type': 'Equity Option',
                'symbol': symbol,
                'quantity': 1,
                'action': 'Buy to Open',
                'option-type': 'C',
                'strike-price': str(strikes['call_buy']),
                'expiration-date': expiry
            }
        ]

        order_data = {
            'account-number': self.account_id,
            'time-in-force': 'Day',
            'order-type': 'Limit',
            'price': str(price_limit),
            'legs': legs
        }

        url = f'{self.base_url}/accounts/{self.account_id}/orders'
        response = self.session.post(url, json=order_data)
        response.raise_for_status()

        return response.json()

    def get_positions(self):
        """
        Get current positions
        """
        url = f'{self.base_url}/accounts/{self.account_id}/positions'
        response = self.session.get(url)
        response.raise_for_status()

        return response.json()['data']['items']

# usage
api = TastytradePythonAPI('username', 'password')

# get SPX options
chain = api.get_option_chain('SPX')

# place iron condor
strikes = {
    'put_buy': 4850,
    'put_sell': 4900,
    'call_sell': 5100,
    'call_buy': 5150
}

order = api.place_iron_condor('SPX', '2025-03-21', strikes, 2.50)

verdict:

IB: more mature library (ib_insync well-maintained).

tastyworks: unofficial API requires more maintenance but simpler REST interface.

both work fine for python automation.

what nexusfi traders say
#

been discussing broker comparisons on nexusfi for 2 years.

lots of experienced algo traders there.

consensus matches my experience:

  • IB for multi-asset automation.
  • tastyworks for options-only focus.
  • both APIs work well for python.

detailed broker discussions in the trading reviews section.

final verdict
#

use interactive brokers if:

  • trading multiple asset classes (futures/stocks/options/forex).
  • need global markets access.
  • care about execution quality (lower slippage).
  • use margin frequently (better rates).

use tastyworks if:

  • options-only trading.
  • prefer simpler API (REST vs gateway).
  • want lower commissions on options.
  • US markets sufficient.

me: i use both.

tastyworks for premium selling strategies (40% capital).

IB for everything else (48% capital).

specialization > trying to force one broker for everything.

tonight (march 12, 2:35am)
#

18 months using both brokers.

IB: better execution, more assets, lower margin rates.

tastyworks: simpler API, lower options commissions, more stable.

python automation works great on both (ib_insync vs REST).

$330/year savings on tastyworks but IB wins on slippage.

use both, specialize by asset class.

nexusfi traders agree: multi-broker approach makes sense for algo trading.


2:35am thursday. broker comparison complete. 18 months experience both. IB: $220k allocated (futures/stocks/international), 1.8 tick avg slippage options, TWS gateway required, $2,130 annual costs. tastyworks: $180k allocated (options premium selling), 2.1 tick avg slippage, REST API, $1,800 annual costs. python: ib_insync vs unofficial tastyworks API (both work). verdict: use both, specialize by asset class. IB better execution/margin, tastyworks simpler API/lower commissions. nexusfi consensus matches.

-AK

Related

polygon.io vs alpha vantage - python algo data feeds comparison 2025
been using both for 2 years. polygon primary, alpha vantage backup. time for honest comparison. my setup # polygon.io:
interactive brokers - 2 years review from algo trader perspective
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:
polygon.io vs alpha vantage - which data feed for algo trading
data feeds = foundation of algo trading. garbage data = garbage trades. i’ve used both polygon.io and alpha vantage extensively. spent months researching data feeds when i started trading. NexusFi community helped narrow down options to these two.
data pipeline - real-time market data with python and redis
real-time data = critical for algo trading. redis = in-memory cache for speed. python pipeline implementation. the latency problem # pulling data every request:
risk management - position sizing with kelly criterion in python
position sizing = most important part of algo trading. kelly criterion = mathematically optimal. python implementation. the problem # fixed position sizing:
backtesting framework - vectorbt for fast parameter testing at scale
vectorbt = game changer for parameter testing. 10x faster than backtrader. vectorized operations instead of event-driven. the speed problem # traditional backtesting: