TradingView Commission and Slippage Tests for NQ and MNQ

A cost-sensitivity test asks how much commission and adverse execution a strategy's average trade can absorb before its simulated result reaches zero. For NQ and MNQ, the answer starts with three separate units: index points, ticks, and dollars per contract.

This guide builds a hypothetical break-even calculation, then shows how to test the assumptions in TradingView. Every performance number and fee example below is invented for education. None describes AORDS results, a broker's current charges, or expected future returns.

Convert points and ticks before changing costs

CME specifies NQ at $20 per index point and MNQ at $2 per index point. Both outright contracts move in minimum increments of 0.25 points. Therefore, one tick is $5 for NQ and $0.50 for MNQ, per contract. These specifications are available on CME's NQ contract page and MNQ product page.

Two ticks of adverse slippage on a one-contract entry and two more on its exit total four ticks. That equals one index point: $20 for NQ or $2 for MNQ. A two-tick setting does not mean two dollars or two ticks for the whole round trip.

Keep the contract and quantity visible in every worksheet. The same number of points has different dollar consequences. The NQ and MNQ contract-size guide explains the underlying sizing arithmetic.

Match the TradingView settings to the fee model

Commission is charged on each side

TradingView applies commission to entries and exits. Its settings support a percentage of transaction value, currency per contract, or currency per order. See TradingView's strategy properties.

For the examples here, use a USD account currency and a hypothetical all-in transaction fee of $1 per contract per side. Under the per-contract model, enter 1 as the commission value. Opening and closing one contract then costs $2. Entering the $2 round-trip amount would double the intended charge.

TradingView's Pine equivalent is the commission type strategy.commission.cash_per_contract with commission_value = 1. A per-order fee behaves differently when an order contains several contracts. The declaration documentation defines these alternatives.

For an actual test, reconcile the broker's schedule with account statements, including applicable exchange, clearing, and other transaction fees. A headline commission may cover only part of that total. Keep monthly subscriptions separate.

Slippage is entered in ticks

The Slippage property applies a fixed tick adjustment to market and stop-order fills. Limit-order verification uses a separate setting. TradingView documents both controls.

The two-sided calculations below assume one market entry and one market exit. A strategy with a limit target does not automatically receive the same slippage treatment on that exit. Inspect the actual order types before applying the formula.

Calculate a hypothetical MNQ break-even point

Assume 100 completed, one-contract MNQ round trips. Their total result before commission and slippage is 300 index points, or $600. The average gross result is therefore 3 points, or $6, across all winning and losing trades.

Hold those trades fixed for this first calculation. With a $1 fee per side and two ticks of adverse slippage on each of the two fills:

• Gross average: 3 points × $2 = $6.

• Round-trip fees: 2 × $1 = $2.

• Round-trip slippage: 2 fills × 2 ticks × $0.50 = $2.

• Net average: $6 − $2 − $2 = $2.

The corresponding total is $200 before fixed overhead and taxes. Costs consume $400 of the original $600.

For this simplified two-fill model, define G as gross average points, V as dollars per point, C as fees per contract per side, s as adverse ticks per fill, and T as dollars per tick:

Net average per contract = G × V − 2 × C − 2 × s × T.

Solving for the slippage level at which that average becomes zero gives:

Break-even ticks per fill = (G × V − 2 × C) ÷ (2 × T).

For this MNQ example, ($6 − $2) ÷ $1 = 4 ticks per fill. At four ticks on entry and four on exit, the entire gross average is consumed. A smaller gross average or higher fee reaches that boundary sooner.

Build a cost grid around the boundary

Keeping the invented $6 gross average and $1 per-side fee fixed produces the following sensitivity ladder:

• Zero ticks per fill: $4 net per trade; $400 over 100 trades.

• One tick per fill: $3 net per trade; $300 over 100 trades.

• Two ticks per fill: $2 net per trade; $200 over 100 trades.

• Four ticks per fill: $0 net per trade; $0 over 100 trades.

• Six ticks per fill: −$2 net per trade; −$200 over 100 trades.

Now vary fees independently. At four ticks per fill, a $0.75 per-side fee leaves $0.50 per trade; a $1.25 per-side fee produces −$0.50. This identifies the boundary's sensitivity to both inputs.

These are arithmetic scenarios, not suggested slippage settings. Choose test values from the execution conditions being investigated and label unsupported assumptions. A positive cell only describes that combination of inputs.

Run a separate calculation for NQ

Suppose a separate, invented NQ sample also averages 3 gross points, with hypothetical fees of $2.50 per side. Its gross average is $60. Two ticks per fill cost $20 for the round trip, leaving $60 − $5 − $20 = $35.

Its break-even boundary is ($60 − $5) ÷ (2 × $5) = 5.5 ticks per fill. This is an analytical threshold, not a directly selectable setting: TradingView uses whole ticks for the slippage input. A five-tick test leaves $5; a six-tick test loses $5. The different result follows from the assumed fees and contract value. It does not establish identical fills or strategy behavior across NQ and MNQ.

Check the arithmetic against full strategy reruns

Keep the symbol, dates, timeframe, strategy version, quantity, and non-cost settings unchanged. Save a cost-free diagnostic run, then rerun the selected commission and slippage combinations. The cost-free result is only an accounting reference.

For each run, record net profit, trade count, average net trade, and drawdown. If trade count or quantity changes, the fixed-trade calculation no longer explains the entire difference. Inspect the first changed trade, particularly when exits depend on entry price or sizing depends on equity.

TradingView's fixed slippage model cannot reproduce every execution condition, and sufficiently large settings can place simulated fills outside a candle's range. Its slippage documentation explains these limitations. Raising the input indefinitely does not automatically create a more informative test.

Do not subtract the same costs again from a result that already includes them. For broader execution differences, use the backtest-versus-live guide. Here, the useful output is a documented cost boundary and the assumptions that move it.

Frequently asked questions

Does break-even slippage tell me which setting to use?

No. It calculates where a particular sample's average reaches zero under specified assumptions. It does not estimate actual slippage or validate the strategy.

What if fees already exceed the gross average?

The simplified model is already negative before adding adverse slippage. A negative calculated threshold is not an available allowance; it means fees alone exceed the sample's gross average.

Where do platform and data subscriptions fit?

Track them as fixed overhead for the same period. Dividing that overhead by completed round trips gives an additional per-trade allocation. State the trade count because the allocation changes with activity.

Educational information only. Futures involve substantial risk. Hypothetical calculations and simulated results do not guarantee future outcomes.