TradingView Limit Order Fills for NQ and MNQ

A buy limit on an NQ chart can look perfect: price touches the level, the strategy records an entry, and the market rebounds. The useful question is whether that result depends on receiving every touch fill. Before judging the entry signal, compare the same strategy under a stricter limit-order assumption.

This guide focuses on that single test. All prices below are hypothetical. They illustrate an execution setting, not a trade recommendation or a claim about future performance.

Find the limit-order setting

TradingView’s current documentation calls the control Limit order execution in the strategy’s Settings/Properties panel. Its choices are Requested price and Requested price and 1 tick beyond. The second choice requires price to pass the limit level before a simulated fill qualifies. See TradingView’s broker emulator settings.

You may also encounter the name Verify Price For Limit Orders in TradingView’s strategy properties guide. In Pine, the related parameter is backtest_fill_limits_assumption. A value of zero permits a touch-based historical fill; a positive value adds a verification distance measured in ticks. Save the actual setting with each test so an old screenshot or tutorial does not leave your assumptions unclear.

One tick has the same price distance on NQ and MNQ

CME lists a minimum price increment of 0.25 index points for both contracts. NQ has a $20-per-point multiplier, so one tick represents $5 per contract. MNQ has a $2-per-point multiplier, making one tick $0.50. These values follow from CME’s NQ specifications and MNQ specifications.

Consequently, a one-tick verification distance means 0.25 points on either chart. Keep that distance separate from the dollar value of the position. Changing contract size changes the financial exposure; it does not change this tick calculation.

Worked example: a buy limit at 25,000

Assume an eligible buy limit is already resting at 25,000.00, price approaches from above, and there is no opening gap. Hold the order’s cancellation rules and every other test setting constant.

• Zero-tick verification: a move down to 25,000.00 can qualify the order for a simulated fill.

• One-tick verification: a touch at 25,000.00 is insufficient. Price must reach 24,999.75 or lower while the order remains eligible.

• Recorded fill: in this example, the verified order fills at its original 25,000.00 limit. The 24,999.75 level is the qualifying price, not an improved entry price.

For a resting sell limit at 25,000.00, the corresponding one-tick qualifying level is 25,000.25. The direction reverses because verification requires movement to a price more favorable to the order. TradingView explains this distinction in its Pine declaration documentation.

Write both prices in your audit. Otherwise, it is easy to mistake an additional qualification requirement for a discount on the entry.

Compare the orders that change

Use two saved runs: one permitting touch fills and one requiring a tick beyond. Start with identical dates, symbols, session filters, chart intervals, quantities, exits, and costs. Name each run clearly and retain its trade export before changing anything.

1. Match orders by signal and time. Find which original entries disappear, which arrive later, and which stay unchanged. A lower trade count alone does not explain the difference.

2. Inspect order lifetime. Record when each limit was created, modified, or cancelled. An attractive level reached after cancellation should not be treated as an available entry.

3. Compare the changed trades. Did the touch-only entries mostly rebound immediately? Did delayed entries alter the time available before the strategy’s scheduled exit? Trace examples rather than guessing from the final balance.

4. Repeat on an untouched period. Keep the selected settings fixed. Choosing a verification value because it produces the nicest historical curve can introduce another form of hindsight.

Leave commissions and other cost assumptions unchanged during this comparison. If those need a separate audit, use the NQ and MNQ commission and slippage guide. Mixing several changes in one rerun makes the cause of a difference harder to identify.

Understand the emulator’s limits

Verification can remove or delay fills while retaining their specified prices. TradingView warns that this price-and-time compromise can produce execution timing that would not be possible in a real market. Its strategy documentation also explains that historical execution depends on available chart data and emulator assumptions.

Treat a one-tick-through result as a sensitivity test. It does not establish your actual queue position, available size, or broker execution quality. If the question is instead whether an entry and exit could occur in the same candle, review stop and target ordering within a TradingView candle separately.

Build a forward-test fill log

For a practical next step, keep a prospective record before inspecting outcomes. Include the contract month, signal timestamp and time zone, order submission time, limit price, quantity, cancellation time, and observed price path. Then record the execution status, filled quantity, actual fill price, and the evidence available for each timestamp.

Label simulated observations clearly. A paper-trading fill is still a simulation; do not blend it with broker-confirmed executions. Record missed orders alongside successful fills so the sample does not quietly exclude inconvenient cases.

The goal is a documented answer to a narrow question: how much does this strategy depend on being filled when price only touches its limit? That answer is more useful than declaring any single verification setting universally realistic.

Educational content only. Futures are leveraged instruments and can produce substantial losses. Backtests and forward simulations cannot guarantee execution or future results.