Alerts vs Fills
The Alerts vs Fills analysis tool quantifies execution variance between your TradingView alert signals and actual broker order fills. This is your second line of defense — after validating your strategy logic, you verify that your broker executes orders as intended.
Why This Matters
Section titled “Why This Matters”Even with perfect strategy logic (validated through Backtest vs Alerts), execution issues can erode your profits:
- Slippage — The difference between your intended price and actual fill price
- Latency — Delays from signal generation to order execution
- Missed Fills — Orders that never executed despite valid alerts
- Partial Fills — Orders that executed at different sizes than intended
This tool gives you visibility into your actual execution quality and helps identify where profits are leaking.
Prerequisites
Section titled “Prerequisites”Before using Alerts vs Fills, ensure you have:
- Alpaca broker connection — Required for fill data
- Webhook events — Real-time alert signals
- Basic or Pro plan — Required for this feature
Quick Navigation
Section titled “Quick Navigation”Workflow Overview
Section titled “Workflow Overview”The analysis follows a streamlined process:
-
Scope Definition — Select your symbol, date range, and data source
-
Automatic Matching — The engine pairs alerts with broker fills
-
Visual Audit — Review signals and fills on an interactive chart
-
Metrics Review — Analyze slippage, latency, and execution quality
-
AI Insights — Get recommendations for optimization (optional)
Key Metrics Explained
Section titled “Key Metrics Explained”| Metric | Description | Good Value |
|---|---|---|
| Match Rate | % of alerts that resulted in fills | >95% |
| Avg Latency | Time from alert to fill | <500ms |
| Avg Slippage | Price difference (alert vs fill) | <0.1% |
| Total Slippage | Cumulative cost of slippage | Minimal |
| Profit Retention | Actual profit vs intended | >98% |
Performance Benchmarks
Section titled “Performance Benchmarks”| Match Rate | Latency | Status | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95%+ | <500ms | ✅ Excellent | Monitor periodically |
| 90-95% | 500ms-2s | ⚠️ Good | Investigate outliers |
| 80-90% | 2-5s | 🟡 Acceptable | Review execution path |
| <80% | >5s | ❌ Issues | Audit infrastructure |
Comparison: Backtest vs Alerts ↔ Alerts vs Fills
Section titled “Comparison: Backtest vs Alerts ↔ Alerts vs Fills”| Aspect | Backtest vs Alerts | Alerts vs Fills |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Validate strategy logic | Validate execution quality |
| Compares | Backtest ↔ Alerts | Alerts ↔ Fills |
| Data Source | TradingView CSV | Alpaca broker API |
| Key Metric | Match rate | Slippage & latency |
| When to Use | Before deploying | While running live |
Next Steps
Section titled “Next Steps”Related Documentation
Section titled “Related Documentation”- Backtest vs Alerts — Validate strategy logic first
- Alpaca Setup — Configure broker connection
- Webhook Configuration — Set up real-time alerts
- Pine Script Editor — Fix identified issues