Skip to content
All library documents

Comparing Backtrader and Zipline on Supported Trading Strategies

Notebook Machine Learning for Trading

Summary

This audit compares Backtrader and Zipline with ML4T on real strategy cases, using only asset and contract combinations that each engine and the frozen data bundle can represent natively. It covers ETF allocation and a US equity panel for both engines, plus CME futures and USD-quoted FX allocation for Backtrader. Crypto perpetual funding is excluded because neither engine provides the required native support. The audit reports matching fills, valuation timestamps, and account-value comparisons, and states that all six required rows pass.

Runtime is measured only for engine execution on rows that pass correctness checks; data preparation and adapter work are outside the timing boundary. The reported ratios should not be generalized to other strategies or machines. Synthetic stress tests provide secondary, pairwise conformance evidence: both engine profiles pass against their matching ML4T profiles, while different terminal values reflect different framework conventions. These stress results test scale and event handling, not real-data strategy support.

Key ideas

  • Compare frameworks only on strategies and asset models both can represent natively.
  • The audit checks fill precision, account values, and valuation timestamps as separate parity requirements.
  • Unsupported asset rows are excluded from the pass denominator.
  • Engine-only timing excludes data and adapter preparation and should not be generalized across machines or strategies.
  • Synthetic stress tests provide pairwise conformance evidence, while real-data rows determine strategy comparisons.

Tags

Full text
# Backtrader and Zipline on Current Case-Study Strategies


# Backtrader and Zipline on Current Case-Study Strategies

This notebook reports the Backtrader and Zipline Reloaded rows from the current real-strategy
audit. It does not infer asset support from ML4T's configurability: a pair is included only when
the external engine and frozen bundle can express the same native contract.

**Learning objectives**

- Compare Backtrader and Zipline against ML4T on supported real strategies
- Apply a monetary comparison unit to account values without weakening fill comparison
- Interpret the measured engine-only runtime boundary
- Use synthetic stress evidence as a secondary conformance result

**Book reference**: Chapter 16, Section 16.3

## Setup

```python
"""Current Backtrader and Zipline parity evidence."""

import json

import polars as pl
from IPython.display import display

from utils.paths import get_chapter_dir
```

```python
# Production defaults - Papermill injects overrides after this cell
ROUND_SECONDS = 3
```

```python
AUDIT_PATH = get_chapter_dir(16) / "resources" / "framework_parity_audit.json"
audit = json.loads(AUDIT_PATH.read_text(encoding="utf-8"))
FRAMEWORKS = ["backtrader", "zipline"]
FRAMEWORK_NAMES = {
    key: f"{audit['frameworks'][key]['display_name']} {audit['frameworks'][key]['version']}"
    for key in FRAMEWORKS
}
CASE_NAMES = {
    "etfs": "ETF allocation",
    "cme_futures": "CME futures",
    "crypto_perps_funding": "Crypto perpetual funding",
    "fx_pairs": "FX allocation (USD-quoted pairs)",
    "us_equities_panel": "US equity panel",
}
```

## 1. Required comparisons

```python
results = (
    pl.DataFrame(audit["real_strategy_records"])
    .filter(pl.col("framework").is_in(FRAMEWORKS))
    .with_columns(
        pl.col("case_study").replace_strict(CASE_NAMES).alias("strategy"),
        pl.col("framework").replace_strict(FRAMEWORK_NAMES).alias("engine"),
    )
    .select(
        "strategy",
        "engine",
        "status",
        "fills",
        "valuations",
        "valuation_timestamps_match",
        "equity_gap",
        "equity_raw_gap",
        "terminal_gap",
        "terminal_raw_gap",
    )
    .sort("strategy", "engine")
)

assert results.height == 6
assert results.filter(pl.col("status") == "pass").height == 6
assert results["valuation_timestamps_match"].all()

display(results)
```

Backtrader and Zipline both participate in the ETF and US equity-panel comparisons. Backtrader
also participates in the CME and USD-quoted foreign-exchange comparisons. The fill stream is
compared at eight-decimal price precision and five-decimal quantity precision, while account
values must round to the same cent. Zipline has no required CME or spot-FX row because the frozen
inputs do not map to its native asset models.

## 2. Unsupported asset models

```python
unsupported = (
    pl.DataFrame(audit["unsupported_records"])
    .filter(pl.col("framework").is_in(FRAMEWORKS))
    .with_columns(
        pl.col("case_study").replace_strict(CASE_NAMES).alias("strategy"),
        pl.col("framework").replace_strict(FRAMEWORK_NAMES).alias("engine"),
    )
    .select("strategy", "engine", "reason")
    .sort("strategy", "engine")
)
display(unsupported)
```

Neither engine is credited with crypto-perpetual funding support it does not natively provide.
Unsupported rows are excluded from the pass denominator.

## 3. Engine-only timing

Timing is retained only for correctness-passing rows and covers the engine call only.

```python
timing = (
    pl.DataFrame(audit["performance_records"])
    .filter(pl.col("framework").is_in(FRAMEWORKS))
    .with_columns(
        pl.col("case_study").replace_strict(CASE_NAMES).alias("strategy"),
        pl.col("framework").replace_strict(FRAMEWORK_NAMES).alias("engine"),
        pl.col("framework_median_seconds").round(ROUND_SECONDS).alias("external_seconds"),
        pl.col("ml4t_median_seconds").round(ROUND_SECONDS).alias("ml4t_seconds"),
        pl.col("framework_to_ml4t_ratio").round(2).alias("external_div_ml4t"),
    )
    .select("strategy", "engine", "external_seconds", "ml4t_seconds", "external_div_ml4t")
)

assert timing.height == 6
display(timing)
```

The timer excludes data and adapter preparation. The ratios should not be applied to other
strategies or machines.

## 4. Synthetic stress evidence

```python
stress = (
    pl.DataFrame(audit["synthetic_stress"]["records"])
    .filter(pl.col("framework").is_in(FRAMEWORKS))
    .with_columns(pl.col("framework").replace_strict(FRAMEWORK_NAMES).alias("engine"))
    .select("engine", "intents", "fills", "trades", "terminal_value", "status")
)
display(stress)
```

Both synthetic stress rows pass against their matching ML4T profiles. Their terminal values differ
because the profiles reproduce different framework conventions. The test is pairwise: ML4T versus
Backtrader and ML4T versus Zipline. The workload tests scale and event conventions, while the
required rows above determine the real-data comparison.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: MIT

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.