Trading firms maintain the practice of utilizing different Order Management Systems (OMS) and Execution Management Systems (EMS) independently.

Trading firms maintain the practice of utilizing different Order Management Systems (OMS) and Execution Management Systems (EMS) independently.

In a recent report titled "U.S. Equities OEMS 2025: The Buy-Side View", published by Crisil Coalition Greenwich, it has been revealed that a clear majority of buy-side traders prefer using separate Order Management Systems (OMS) and Execution Management Systems (EMS) rather than a single integrated platform.

The study, which was based on interviews with 40 buy-side equity traders across North America, found that traders value the control, flexibility, and specialized functionality offered by separate systems. This preference is particularly valuable in adapting quickly to changing market conditions.

According to the report, 58% of buy-side traders prefer using separate OMS and EMS platforms. Among those using separate EMS platforms, 74% reported improved or greater trader functionality, and 61% cited enhanced flexibility compared to integrated solutions.

The report also highlights that while integrated OEMS platforms provide convenience and potential cost savings, many traders feel that the benefits of specialized, standalone systems—such as superior functionality and adaptability—currently outweigh those advantages.

The findings of the study indicate that established brands like Charles River and Bloomberg's AIM are preferred by traders. However, providers offering high-performance, reliable, and easily integrated OMS and EMS solutions are well-positioned in the market.

Performance, easy integration, speed, reliability, and seamless connectivity are important features for buy-side traders. Additionally, customer support, ease of customization, and ease of use and intuitiveness are also crucial for buy-side traders.

The report offers insights into the preferences of buy-side trading desks and may provide guidance for technology providers developing OMS and EMS products. It is clear that traders are more interested in the functional and practical aspects of their systems, rather than the technical details of how platforms are built.

As technology innovation and functional integration continue to blur the distinctions between OMS and EMS, it will be interesting to see how the preferences of buy-side traders evolve in the future. For now, however, the report suggests that the benefits of specialized systems seem to outweigh the advantages of consolidated platforms for buy-side traders.

[1] Crisil Coalition Greenwich (2024). U.S. Equities OEMS 2025: The Buy-Side View. [Link to the report] [2] Crisil Coalition Greenwich (2024). Methodology: U.S. Equities OEMS 2025: The Buy-Side View. [Link to the methodology] [3] Interviews conducted between July and September 2024 with 40 buy-side equity traders across North America, focusing on their daily workflow, technology platform use, and business practices in the U.S. cash equity market.

1. The preference for separate Order Management Systems (OMS) and Execution Management Systems (EMS) among buy-side traders, as revealed in the Crisil Coalition Greenwich report, is largely due to the control, flexibility, and specialized functionality they offer, making them valuable in adapting to changing market conditions.
2. Despite the convenience and potential cost savings of integrated OEMS platforms, the report indicates that traders find the benefits of specialized, standalone systems, such as superior functionality and adaptability, more compelling at this time.
3. As technology continues to evolve, blurring the distinctions between OMS and EMS, it will be intriguing to observe how the preferences of buy-side traders evolve in future, balancing functional integration with the current benefits of specialized systems.

Read also: