[ S U R V E Y
|
E X E C U T I O N
M A N A G E M E N T
S Y S T E M S ]
Instinet Newport
For the second year in succession Instinet Newport
produced the best scores among all leading providers.
Reliability and Availability
The average score was in fact unchanged from the ex-
Latency
cellent
levels recorded in the 2016 survey. It remained
comfortably
ahead of the 6.0 score that indicates ‘Very
Client Service Personnel
Good’ performance. To maintain such consistency
Ease-of-Use
reflects well on the capabilities being assessed. The
Handling of New Versions/Releases
only
area where Instinet failed to beat the average of
the
overall Survey was in Asset Class coverage. Scores
Breadth of Broker Algorithms
here were more than a point below those recorded in
Timeliness of Updates for Broker Changes
most other categories. A number of respondents would
FIX Capabilities
clearly
like to see more capabilities added in this
area,
with
FX being mentioned specifically. Indeed
Breadth of Asset Class Coverage
clients describing themselves as using Instinet as a
Breadth of Direct Connections to Venues
multi-asset class EMS were by some way the lowest
Product Development
within
the Survey. In line with the Survey as a whole,
the
best scores were seen in areas of Reliability, while
Ease of Integration to Internal Systems
Client Service was a particularly strong area compared
Overall Cost of Operation
to overall averages and the competition. These two
important aspects of core competence suggest that
Instinet
Instinet is concentrating
things its clients care
2016 on the 2017
most about.
6.73
6.72
Response numbers were slightly lower than a year
ago, down around 6.30
15%, but still 6.29
well ahead of some of
the other profiled 6.76
providers. Interestingly
hedge funds
6.62
provided only around one-sixth of responses, which
6.29
6.37
was lower than average. There were correspondingly a
6.12
6.15
higher proportion
of institutional
clients. The majority
of clients were from
North America,
6.33
6.41 with some from
the UK but fewer from Europe than some providers.
6.28
6.27
In terms of priorities for evaluating services, respon-
6.44 than some,
dents for Instinet 6.35
were less demanding
which again suggests
a
high
level
of satisfaction.
5.39
5.24
Overall it is clear that Instinet has a very solid and
6.12
6.01
extremely satisfied client base. However the pace of
5.90 seems to
5.73
competitors’ innovation
be increasing while
new product development
saw one
5.93
5.98 of the lowest
scores for Instinet. That suggests that competitive
6.18
6.20
pressures may grow in the coming months and cer-
tainly leaves no room for complacency.
6.73
6.72
Reliability and Availability
6.30
6.29
Latency
6.76
6.62
Client Service Personnel
6.29
6.37
Ease-of-Use
6.12
6.15
Handling of New Versions/Releases
6.33
6.41
Breadth of Broker Algorithms
6.28
6.27
Timeliness of Updates for Broker Changes
6.35
6.44
FIX Capabilities
5.39
5.24
Breadth of Asset Class Coverage
6.12
6.01
Breadth of Direct Connections to Venues
5.90
5.73
Product Development
5.93
5.98
Ease of Integration to Internal Systems
6.18
6.20
Overall Cost of Operation
0.00
1.00
2.00
2016
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
2017
Issue 53
TheTradeNews.com
83