FOR THE ATTENTION OF PROREALTIME,
For a long time, I have been reading public criticisms reporting serious and repeated errors in the data displayed by ProRealTime. Today, I also read on Reddit a criticism published yesterday by other users, concerning precisely this same issue.
These criticisms do not concern the colours used in charts or simple differences in visual presentation between platforms. They concern discrepancies in the figures themselves: the figures that form the basis of charts, indicators, alerts, scanners, back-tests and, more broadly, all market analysis.
I consider it essential to state clearly the arguments made in these criticisms because, after carrying out my own thorough comparisons, I have found exactly the same facts and I fully agree with the reasons invoked.
WHAT THE CRITICISMS REPORT
The criticisms state that the discrepancies concern the fundamental price data: Open, High, Low and Close. They also concern daily and intraday volume corresponding to each time frame used.
They stress that these discrepancies are not about a particular charting convention. A platform may choose different colours for its candlesticks or volume bars: that is not the issue. What matters are the actual numerical values. Those values must correspond exactly to the values published by exchanges and other authoritative original market-data sources.
The criticisms explain that, in many cases, the discrepancies are already visible to the naked eye. The shape of a candlestick, the sequence of candlesticks or the relative size of volume bars may immediately reveal an anomaly. When the anomaly is not clearly visible, an automated comparison of data series, including through artificial-intelligence systems, can rapidly detect differences between ProRealTime data and official-source data. This automated detection does not replace verification: it identifies the cases that must be examined. Then, by checking the precise figures, zooming in and comparing the values, one finds that the discrepancies are real.
The criticisms therefore describe hundreds and hundreds of errors per security reviewed, both in price data and in volume data. They refer to discrepancies that are sometimes extremely large, even colossal, compared with the reference data published by official sources, including Nasdaq for Nasdaq-listed securities. They therefore conclude that this is neither a small number of marginal anomalies nor isolated errors, but a repetitive, materially verifiable problem that is gravely incompatible with a serious financial-analysis platform.
I fully confirm these findings. I had already conducted this type of check before and had even reported a specific anomaly directly to ProRealTime. Approximately three days later, the relevant values were changed to match the figures published by Nasdaq. Today, after reading the criticism published yesterday, I resumed the comparisons in depth. I found exactly the same problem: hundreds and hundreds of errors per security reviewed, both in Open, High, Low and Close data and in daily and intraday volume. The discrepancies against Nasdaq reference data are sometimes colossal. I therefore fully agree with the arguments made in these criticisms because my own checks confirm them.
WHY THESE ERRORS DESTROY ALL ANALYTICAL VALUE
The criticisms rightly recall that price and volume data are not secondary elements. They are the premises of every calculation, every indicator and every analytical conclusion.
When an opening price, high, low, closing price or volume figure is wrong, the corresponding chart is wrong. When the chart is wrong, every calculation based on it is also wrong. When the calculations are wrong, the indicators, signals and conclusions derived from those indicators necessarily become wrong.
This distorts, among other things, moving averages, RSI, MACD, ATR, Bollinger Bands, volatility measures, trend and momentum readings, breakout and reversal signals, price-volume analysis, volume indicators, VWAP, alerts, scanners, back-tests, statistical models, algorithmic models, risk management and position sizing.
The criticisms therefore correctly argue that calculations based on materially inaccurate data can create a signal that does not exist, conceal a real signal, distort a trend reading, falsify the interpretation of volume, or lead to a conclusion opposite to the one that would result from authentic data. Investment and trading decisions that depend on those calculations are therefore necessarily altered. They may be directed in precisely the opposite direction to that indicated by real data.
I fully confirm this chain of consequences. I have compared the same securities with other platforms and, in the comparisons I carried out, their data matched the reference data consulted, whereas ProRealTime displayed the discrepancies described above. This is precisely why certain charts differ substantially from one platform to another. Without accurate price and volume data, no indicator, alert, scanner, back-test or analysis built on ProRealTime can inspire even minimal confidence. Under these conditions, the platform becomes absolutely useless for any serious analysis.
WHY USERS CANNOT CORRECT THE PROBLEM
The criticisms stress that it is impossible to transfer to users the responsibility for detecting, reconciling and correcting these errors.
When one detects a discrepancy, one has no write access to ProRealTime’s historical database. One cannot replace an incorrect price, modify an incorrect volume figure, or inject accurate data into the platform’s charts, indicators, alerts, scanners or back-tests.
Even if one possesses correct reference data, no one can materially detect, check, compare and manually correct thousands of records across numerous securities, multiple markets and several time frames. This task would be technically and materially impossible. Users may identify discrepancies; they cannot correct ProRealTime’s historical databases.
The correction, reconciliation, validation, audit and certification of historical data therefore fall exclusively within ProRealTime’s responsibility. The platform must guarantee, automatically, continuously and demonstrably, that all data it distributes faithfully correspond to data published by original market-data sources.
I fully confirm this point. I can compare, identify and document discrepancies, but I cannot correct them within the platform. This impossibility results both from the complete lack of system access and from the material scale of the task. It is impossible to manually check, every day, thousands of price and volume values for all securities and all time frames. Until ProRealTime has implemented rigorous, automated, audited and certified alignment with official data, it will be impossible to place lasting trust in it.
WHY THE PERSISTENCE OF THE PROBLEM IS PARTICULARLY OUTRAGEOUS
The criticisms recall that this problem has already been the subject of many public complaints for a long time. This is precisely what makes the situation even more serious and more unacceptable for a platform of this level.
After repeated warnings, after public complaints, after previous reports and after isolated corrections already made, the persistence of hundreds and hundreds of discrepancies per security reviewed necessarily destroys confidence. A platform used to analyse markets, manage risk and make financial decisions cannot continue to distribute materially incorrect data without deeply compromising its credibility.
The criticisms therefore legitimately lead one to question the causes: inadequate data governance, ingestion errors, aggregation errors, failures in validation controls, defective historical-data maintenance, negligence, operational inefficiency or another systemic cause. It would be irresponsible to attribute intent without evidence. But whatever the cause, none of these possibilities makes the result acceptable.
I fully share this indignation. I do not wish ProRealTime to lose the trust of its users. On the contrary, with fully accurate data, fully corrected historical records and strong certification, it could become an exceptional platform, perhaps one of the best on the market. But in its current state, I understand those who call it a “toy”. A visually sophisticated platform whose calculations rest on incorrect data is not a reliable professional decision-support tool. It can seriously mislead users. Without accurate data, it becomes not only useless for serious analysis, but also potentially harmful.
WHAT PROREALTIME MUST DO
It is urgent that ProRealTime fully correct all affected price and volume histories.
This correction must not be limited to a few reported securities, a few recent dates, a few markets or a few isolated examples. It must cover ProRealTime’s entire coverage universe: all exchanges, all markets, all financial instruments and all historical records for which the platform provides data, charts, indicators or analytical tools.
ProRealTime must carry out an exhaustive audit, security by security and instrument by instrument, systematically reconciling its data with data published by exchanges and original market-data sources. It must correct all affected historical records, both price data and volume data.
It must also publicly explain the sources it uses, its processing methods, its adjustment rules, any transformations applied to the data, the causes of the identified discrepancies and the concrete measures adopted to prevent their recurrence.
Finally, it must implement a permanent audit, validation, reconciliation and certification mechanism guaranteeing that displayed data correspond accurately, continuously and verifiably to original market-source data.
I fully support these demands. I ask ProRealTime to act seriously, without delay and with total transparency. Price and volume histories must be corrected in full, and their consistency with official data must be demonstrable, not merely asserted.
MAXIMUM ATTENTION, URGENCY AND THE RESTORATION OF TRUST
I deeply thank ProRealTime for the maximum attention it may give to what is described here. I insist on this point: the attention given to this issue must be maximum because the data concerned form the foundation of every calculation performed on the platform.
I also thank ProRealTime in advance for acting with the greatest urgency. The purpose of this complaint is not to destroy the platform or hinder its development. On the contrary, it would be highly desirable to be able to trust it, to use it seriously and, one day, to subscribe to its services with the certainty that the data being analysed genuinely correspond to market data.
However, until price and volume histories have been fully corrected across all markets and exchanges covered by ProRealTime, the minimum conditions will not exist to place sufficient trust in it, even for free use. It is impossible to build, interpret or seriously use indicators when the essential data on which they depend are wrong.
Checks will therefore continue to be performed. Not in order to attempt to correct the data personally — which is impossible — but in order to verify whether ProRealTime has genuinely put in place the necessary corrections, controls and certification. Today, artificial-intelligence systems can rapidly identify discrepancies between data series. They do not enable users to correct the ProRealTime database, but they do enable the detection of differences that should never exist if data were correctly integrated and regularly audited.
When trust is lost, it becomes extremely difficult to rebuild. Without an absolutely serious approach, without complete correction, without genuine transparency, without permanent audit and without demonstrable consistency with official data, trust will remain profoundly weakened. Users may then be forced constantly to wonder whether the data entered into the platform are once again wrong and whether the calculations resulting from them remain deeply distorted.
ProRealTime would unquestionably deserve a very different level of consideration if its data truly, fully and permanently matched data from official sources. It could deserve users’ trust, recommendations and subscriptions. But that trust can exist only if price and volume data are accurate, complete, verifiable and faithful to data published by original markets.
I therefore thank ProRealTime again for giving this complaint the greatest attention and for intervening with the greatest urgency. The full correction of price and volume histories across the platform’s entire market coverage is indispensable. Without this correction, the platform cannot serve serious financial analysis. With this correction, transparency and certification, it could once again become a platform that fully deserves the trust of its users.
