ferro-ta/benchmarks

ferro-ta Benchmark Suite

Reproducible speed and accuracy comparisons across 62 indicators and the libraries available in your environment.

Overview

The benchmark suite compares ferro-ta against other Python technical-analysis libraries on a common dataset and shared wrappers so the results are easier to reproduce and critique.

It is not designed to prove that ferro-ta wins everywhere. It is designed to show where ferro-ta is faster, where it only ties, and where another library still wins.

Library	Notes
TA-Lib	C extension; widely used comparison baseline
pandas-ta	Pure Python; broad indicator set
ta	Simple API; some indicators use O(n²) loops and are very slow
Tulipy	C extension; truncated output (no leading NaN padding)
finta	Expects DatetimeIndex DataFrame; some indicators very slow

---

Dataset (LARGE = 100k bars)

All speed benchmarks use the LARGE dataset: 100,000 bars of OHLCV data.

• Source: benchmarks/data_generator.py — geometric Brownian motion for realistic prices; C-contiguous float64 arrays for all libraries.
• Why 100k: Reflects backtesting and batch workloads; stresses memory and CPU so differences between libraries are clear.
• Scales available: SMALL (1k), MEDIUM (10k), LARGE (100k). Speed suite uses LARGE by default.

from benchmarks.data_generator import SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE
# SMALL  = 1,000 bars
# MEDIUM = 10,000 bars  (e.g. accuracy tests)
# LARGE  = 100,000 bars (speed benchmarks)

---

Methodology

• Harness: pytest-benchmark with benchmark.pedantic(..., iterations=5, rounds=20, warmup_rounds=2).
• Reported metric: Median time per call in microseconds (µs) — lower is better.
• TA-Lib head-to-head JSON: benchmarks/bench_vs_talib.py records per-run samples, variance stats, machine/runtime/build metadata, and Python-tracked peak allocation snapshots.
• Machine info: Stored in the generated JSON artifacts for reproducibility.
• Libraries: Only libraries present in the environment are benchmarked; missing ones are skipped.

Current checked-in TA-Lib artifact

The checked-in benchmarks/artifacts/latest/benchmark_vs_talib.json artifact uses contiguous float64 arrays at 10k and 100k bars on an Apple M3 Max, CPython 3.13.5, and Rust 1.91.1 with the default release profile (lto = true, codegen-units = 1).

• ferro-ta is ahead outside the tie band on 6 of 12 rows at 10k bars and 6 of 12 rows at 100k bars.
• TA-Lib still wins in the current artifact on STOCH and ADX, and remains close on EMA, RSI, ATR, and OBV depending on size.
• The public claim should therefore be read as "often faster on selected indicators," not "faster everywhere."
• When publishing performance statements, point readers to the raw JSON artifact, not just the summary table.
• The artifact now includes per-run samples, variance stats, and Python-tracked allocation snapshots for each compared indicator.

Reproducible Perf Artifacts

Use the perf-contract runner when you want a compact set of machine-readable artifacts for single-series latency, batch throughput, streaming throughput, and hotspot attribution in one directory:

uv run python benchmarks/run_perf_contract.py --output-dir benchmarks/artifacts/latest --skip-talib

That command writes:

• indicator_latency.json — canonical-fixture timings for the benchmark suite indicators
• batch.json — 2-D batch throughput plus grouped multi-indicator timings
• streaming.json — streaming update throughput vs batch baselines
• runtime_hotspots.json — ranked hotspot report with reference speedups
• manifest.json — runtime/git metadata plus hashes for the generated artifacts

For CI or local guardrails, validate the hotspot report with:

uv run python benchmarks/check_hotspot_regression.py --input benchmarks/artifacts/latest/runtime_hotspots.json

---

Speed comparison (100k bars, median µs — lower is better)

The speed table includes all 62 indicators. Number = median µs; N/A = library does not support that indicator. To regenerate: run the full suite, then uv run python benchmarks/benchmark_table.py.

Indicator	ferro_ta	talib	pandas_ta	ta	tulipy	finta
SMA	256	327	425	798	338	856
EMA	369	365	427	641	358	722
WMA	257	356	433	N/A	356	112422
DEMA	444	588	670	N/A	335	1830
TEMA	437	768	866	N/A	358	3481
T3	462	407	478	N/A	N/A	496
TRIMA	598	400	474	N/A	386	1722
KAMA	992	369	140751	N/A	367	2501
HULL_MA	547	N/A	957	N/A	372	329392
VWMA	376	N/A	669	N/A	391	N/A
MIDPOINT	1345	4685	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
MIDPRICE	1273	831	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
RSI	653	647	728	1762	404	2429
MACD	833	793	1058	1657	423	1726
STOCH	2445	941	1253	3233	901	3321
CCI	918	1029	1122	367074	676	321471
WILLR	1303	750	859	3409	775	3575
AROON	1418	587	1322	130842	737	N/A
AROONOSC	1464	586	N/A	N/A	773	N/A
ADX	855	746	27637	321625	614	N/A
MOM	189	180	254	N/A	186	352
ROC	578	204	272	361	202	463
CMO	876	634	707	N/A	312	2301
PPO	391	538	1045	N/A	380	2395
TRIX	488	831	1831	1891	426	1773
TSF	1519	678	N/A	N/A	363	N/A
ULTOSC	2069	619	N/A	14142	588	N/A
BOP	249	228	361	N/A	226	N/A
PLUS_DI	794	629	26792	N/A	690	N/A
MINUS_DI	796	600	N/A	N/A	642	N/A
BBANDS	345	581	1079	2163	406	2432
ATR	640	660	800	157763	370	6835
NATR	722	662	782	N/A	396	N/A
TRANGE	217	205	374	N/A	199	6606
STDDEV	611	408	461	N/A	400	1552
VAR	1281	357	398	N/A	417	N/A
SAR	520	459	N/A	N/A	454	N/A
KELTNER_CHANNELS	926	N/A	1062	2369	N/A	N/A
DONCHIAN	2399	N/A	3334	3145	N/A	N/A
SUPERTREND	1242	N/A	638613	N/A	N/A	N/A
CHOPPINESS_INDEX	2442	N/A	4892	N/A	N/A	N/A
OBV	482	475	592	496	515	4646
AD	271	282	424	615	291	N/A
ADOSC	482	409	544	N/A	376	N/A
MFI	350	779	925	433698	692	401076
VWAP	288	N/A	11460	N/A	N/A	880
AVGPRICE	215	211	N/A	N/A	229	N/A
MEDPRICE	203	188	N/A	N/A	197	445
TYPPRICE	195	205	N/A	N/A	204	435
WCLPRICE	199	197	N/A	N/A	210	292
SQRT	204	208	N/A	N/A	199	N/A
LOG10	434	408	N/A	N/A	411	N/A
ADD	188	186	N/A	N/A	189	N/A
LINEARREG	1555	704	N/A	N/A	368	N/A
LINEARREG_SLOPE	1548	665	N/A	N/A	370	N/A
CORREL	4277	413	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
BETA	5226	483	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
HT_DCPERIOD	10864	4187	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
HT_TRENDMODE	10984	23020	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
CDLENGULFING	308	617	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
CDLDOJI	273	312	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
CDLHAMMER	304	1418	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Apple M3 Max, Python 3.13; 273 passed, 121 skipped (unsupported = N/A). Regenerate with Running benchmarks.

Takeaways:

• ta is 20–350× slower on ATR, CCI, ADX, MFI (O(n²) Python loops).
• ferro-ta is often materially faster than pandas-ta on the checked-in 100k-bar table.
• TA-Lib and Tulipy (C extensions) are strong; ferro-ta is competitive and avoids native dependencies.

---

Running benchmarks

# Full speed suite (100k bars, all indicator × library pairs) — writes results.json
uv run pytest benchmarks/test_speed.py --benchmark-only --benchmark-json=benchmarks/results.json -v

# Head-to-head only (12 indicators × ferro_ta) — quick check
uv run pytest benchmarks/test_speed.py --benchmark-only -k "test_head_to_head" -v

# Large-dataset scaling only (ferro_ta at 100k)
uv run pytest benchmarks/test_speed.py --benchmark-only -k "test_large_dataset" -v

# Regenerate the Speed Comparison markdown table from results.json
uv run python benchmarks/benchmark_table.py

# TA-Lib head-to-head with machine/runtime/build metadata, per-run samples,
# variance stats, and Python-tracked allocation snapshots
uv run python benchmarks/bench_vs_talib.py --sizes 10000 100000 --json benchmark_vs_talib.json

# Selected derivatives analytics comparison (BSM price, IV, Greeks, Black-76)
# against built-in analytical references plus optional installed libraries
uv run python benchmarks/bench_derivatives_compare.py --sizes 1000 10000 --json benchmark_derivatives_compare.json

# Optional regression check used in CI
uv run python benchmarks/check_vs_talib_regression.py --input benchmark_vs_talib.json

# Batch throughput + grouped multi-indicator calls
uv run python benchmarks/bench_batch.py --samples 100000 --series 100 --json batch_benchmark.json

# Streaming update throughput vs batch baselines
uv run python benchmarks/bench_streaming.py --bars 100000 --json streaming_benchmark.json

# Ranked hotspot attribution against bundled reference implementations
uv run python benchmarks/profile_runtime_hotspots.py --json runtime_hotspots.json

# Portable vs SIMD-enabled build comparison
uv run python benchmarks/bench_simd.py --json simd_benchmark.json

# One-shot perf artifact bundle
uv run python benchmarks/run_perf_contract.py --output-dir benchmarks/artifacts/latest

Without uv: use pytest and python from the same environment where ferro_ta and optional libs (e.g. talib, pandas_ta, ta, tulipy, finta) are installed.

Derivatives analytics

benchmarks/bench_derivatives_compare.py focuses on selected options-analytics paths rather than the full surface area:

• BSM call pricing
• call implied-volatility recovery
• call Greeks
• Black-76 call pricing

The script always includes two analytical baselines:

• reference_numpy — pure NumPy formulas with vectorized IV bisection
• reference_python_loop — scalar math-based reference for sanity checking

If py_vollib is installed, it is added automatically as an extra baseline. The output JSON includes runtime/build metadata, per-run timing samples, variance stats, and Python-tracked peak allocation snapshots.

WASM

From the wasm/ directory:

wasm-pack build --target nodejs --out-dir pkg
node bench.js --json ../wasm_benchmark.json

---

Indicator coverage

Overlap (12)

SMA EMA WMA DEMA TEMA T3 TRIMA KAMA HULL_MA VWMA MIDPOINT MIDPRICE

Momentum (18)

RSI MACD STOCH CCI WILLR AROON AROONOSC ADX MOM ROC CMO PPO TRIX TSF ULTOSC BOP PLUS_DI MINUS_DI

Volatility (11)

BBANDS ATR NATR TRANGE STDDEV VAR SAR KELTNER_CHANNELS DONCHIAN SUPERTREND CHOPPINESS_INDEX

Volume (5)

OBV AD ADOSC MFI VWAP

Price Transform (4)

AVGPRICE MEDPRICE TYPPRICE WCLPRICE

Math (3)

SQRT LOG10 ADD

Statistics (4)

LINEARREG LINEARREG_SLOPE CORREL BETA

Cycle (2)

HT_DCPERIOD HT_TRENDMODE

Candlestick patterns (3)

CDLENGULFING CDLDOJI CDLHAMMER

---

Accuracy results

Accuracy is tested separately; ferro_ta is the reference.

• 243 pairs pass (allclose or correlation).
• 138 pairs skipped (known formula/anchoring/scaling differences).
• 0 failures.

Known structural differences

Pair	Reason
CMO vs talib/pandas_ta/finta	ferro-ta CMO uses different smoothing variant
BBANDS vs finta	finta normalizes bands differently
ATR vs finta	finta uses simple TR instead of Wilder smoothing
VWAP vs pandas_ta	pandas_ta anchors to session start
HT_TRENDMODE vs talib	Hilbert Transform seed divergence
RSI vs ta/finta	ta/finta use SMA warmup vs Wilder EMA
Tulipy ROC	Fraction (0.01 = 1%) vs ferro-ta (1.0 = 1%)
Tulipy BBANDS	(lower, mid, upper) order differs from ferro-ta

# Accuracy tests (62 indicators × 6 libraries)
uv run pytest benchmarks/test_accuracy.py -v

---

Data generator

benchmarks/data_generator.py:

• generate_ohlcv(size) — dict of C-contiguous float64 arrays: open, high, low, close, volume. High ≥ close ≥ low > 0; volume > 0.
• get_pandas_ohlcv(data) — DataFrame with DatetimeIndex for pandas-ta and finta.

Pre-built: SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE (and *_DF variants).

---

Library compatibility

Detailed notes per library:

• TA-Lib
• pandas-ta
• ta
• Tulipy
• finta