[ 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 ]
Charles River
In previous years Charles River (CRD) has not received
enough responses to qualify for a provider profile. This
Reliability and Availability
changed significantly in 2017. CRD generated a 200%
Latency in responses. The firm, which has long been
increase
known
as a provider of OMS capabilities to many of the
Client Service Personnel
world’s largest asset managers, saw its EMS services
Ease-of-Use
evaluated by a large number of institutional long-only
Handling of New Versions/Releases
managers.
The majority of customers who responded
are
based in the US, though responses were received
Breadth of Broker Algorithms
from Asia and UK as well. The scale of the business
Timeliness of Updates for Broker Changes
undertaken by CRD respondents is reflected in the fact
FIX Capabilities
that
it had the highest average weight of respondents
among
major providers. These clients are naturally
Breadth of Asset Class Coverage
demanding. Coupled with the way in which the CRD
Breadth of Direct Connections to Venues
execution management capabilities have evolved, this
Product Development
probably
explains some of the scoring.
Scores overall were lower than in 2016. Given the
Ease of Integration to Internal Systems
small number of responses last year the comparisons
Overall Cost of Operation
are less meaningful for CRD than for others. However,
scores in 8 of 13 categories saw an average of less than
Charles River
the default score
of 5.0. Probably
2016
2017 the most concerning
was the score for Client Service. The CRD position
4.99
5.26
was well down on the 2016 score and significantly
5.06 for all major
5.02
below the average
providers and the
Survey overall. 5.27
In some categories,
4.35 for example Broker
Connections, the development of the CRD execution
5.24
4.82
management capability probably impacts on the way
4.17 for relatively low
its services are 4.51
viewed and accounts
scores. However
that should 4.47
not be the case for some-
5.17
thing as important as client service. CRD also scored
4.48
4.55
relatively poorly in terms of Overall Cost and the way
5.34 and upgrades
in which new 5.57
versions are introduced
completed. 5.47
5.09
The company makes a good case for the integrated
5.59
5.06
nature of its offering and the incorporation of key
4.88 and compliance
4.51
areas such as analytics
within it. The
core OMS capability
remains strong and CRD
5.73 certainly 4.95
is successful in the marketplace. However in compari-
5.32
4.21
son to specialist EMS providers, it would appear there
is still work to be done.
4.99
Reliability and Availability
5.26
5.06
5.02
Latency
Client Service Personnel
5.27
4.35
Ease-of-Use
5.24
4.82
Handling of New Versions/Releases
4.51
4.17
Breadth of Broker Algorithms
5.17
4.47
4.48
4.55
Timeliness of Updates for Broker Changes
5.57
5.34
FIX Capabilities
Breadth of Asset Class Coverage 5.09
Breadth of Direct Connections to Venues 5.06
Product Development
4.51
Ease of Integration to Internal Systems
5.47
5.59
4.88
5.73
4.95
Overall Cost of Operation
5.32
4.21
0.00
1.00
2.00
2016
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
2017
Issue 53
TheTradeNews.com
81