Find the right execution mechanism - and defend the choice.

Pre-trade intelligence and post-trade evidence on one independent dataset.

ETF liquidity is fragmented across lit venues, RFQ platforms, regional exchanges, and off-book mechanisms. Each trade has its own profile - and seeing how mechanisms compare at every size, type, and regime takes independent, market-wide data most desks don't have.

Built on the deepest European tape and extending across global ETF markets.

Request Your Execution Review Talk to ETF Specialists

Mechanism Comparison

How execution costs compare across mechanisms.

€10k SWITCHOVER ZONE €10m+
  Lit execution cost
  RFQ execution cost
€1–2M
Typical equity ETF switchover zone. Lower for fixed income and commodity ETFs. Shifts with volatility, time of day, and product liquidity.
4/5
of the largest European ETF
issuers use xyt data
RFQ + Lit + Regional
complete EBBO across the
full ETF trading landscape
8yrs+
of normalised history
for regime comparison
Shared
benchmark used by issuers,
market makers, and exchanges

What xyt Does for ETF Desks

Before the order. After the fill. One platform.

Pre-trade intelligence and post-trade evidence - supported by the same independent dataset.

Pre-Trade Intelligence

Decide better before the order goes out.

See the actual effective spread at EBBO across mechanisms, sizes, and regimes. Choose a mechanism on the evidence - RFQ, lit, or auction - and time orders against intraday liquidity patterns observed in the data.

RFQ vs LitVolume CurvesEBBORegime Analysis

Post-Trade Evidence

Defend every decision with data.

Generate committee-ready best execution reports, benchmark brokers on independent market-wide data, and answer compliance questions with order-level audit trails - without manual reporting burden.

Best ExecutionBroker ReviewTCACommittee Reporting

xyt is the independent analytics platform that helps the ETF ecosystem measure, improve, and prove secondary market quality - across every venue, every trading protocol, and every market participant.

Core Use Cases

Six things your desk can do - today.

Each grounded in the same independent, normalised dataset.

01Pick the Right
Mechanism

Compare Execution Mechanisms - by ETF Type, Size, and Regime

See the actual effective spread at EBBO for every mechanism, segmented by trade size, ETF asset class, product liquidity tier, time of day, and volatility regime. Understand how execution costs differ across RFQ, lit, and auction - and how those differences shift with market conditions.

  • Trade size buckets (€10k to €10m+)
  • Equity, fixed income, commodity ETFs
  • Product liquidity tiers
  • Time of day and volatility regimes
  • Effective spread comparison by mechanism
  • Switchover zones across product types
Why it matters

Picking the mechanism that fits a particular trade can save several basis points. Across a portfolio, that compounds. Data-driven mechanism selection is one of the highest-value execution improvements most ETF desks can make.

Sample Output · Illustrative

Effective spread by mechanism, by trade size bucket.

14 bps 8 bps 2 bps €10–100k €100k–1m €1–5m €5m+ Lit RFQ

Equity ETFs · effective spread vs EBBO, by mechanism and size bucket.

02Benchmark
Independently

Benchmark Brokers, Venues, and Mechanisms on Market-Wide Data

Compare execution quality across brokers, venues, and mechanisms using market-wide data - the kind no single broker can provide and no single venue can replicate.

  • Fill rates by counterparty and mechanism
  • Effective spreads versus EBBO
  • Venue contribution to best execution
  • Slippage by broker and order type
  • Cross-broker performance ranking
  • Algo wheel calibration inputs
Why it matters

Broker review and algo wheel calibration need independent benchmarks. Self-reported broker analytics can't provide the objectivity that governance demands. Market-wide data gives every counterparty a fair baseline - and supports broker review conversations with evidence, not opinion.

Sample Output · Illustrative

Broker ranking on effective spread vs EBBO.

EBBO Broker A −1.2 bps Broker B −0.6 bps Broker C +0.4 bps Broker D +1.1 bps Broker E +2.0 bps Broker F +2.7 bps

Effective spread relative to independent EBBO, by broker.

03Committee-Ready
Evidence

Support Best Execution with Auditable Evidence

Generate ETF-specific best execution reports that drill from summary dashboard, to venue-by-venue detail, to order-level evidence - covering mechanism choice and execution quality versus independent EBBO benchmarks.

  • Summary dashboards for committee review
  • Venue-by-venue detail
  • Order-level audit trail
  • Mechanism choice rationale
  • Execution quality vs independent EBBO
  • Drill-down for compliance enquiries
Why it matters

As ETF volumes grow, regulators and internal governance expect the same best execution rigour applied to equities. Independent, auditable evidence supports compliance without creating a manual reporting burden - MiFID II best execution requirements don't stop at equities.

Sample Output · Illustrative

Best execution report - drill-down levels.

SUMMARY DASHBOARD Total trades · Avg slippage · Spread vs EBBO 12,450 orders · 0.8 bps · −0.3 bps VENUE BREAKDOWN By exchange · MTF · RFQ platform · regional Effective spread · fill rate · contribution ORDER-LEVEL AUDIT Timestamp · venue · price · EBBO at fill Full evidence trail for compliance review

Drill from committee summary to individual order evidence.

04Time the Order
Right

Improve Pre-Trade Decisions

Before placing an order, see the conditions you're trading into - volume curves, spread curves by time of day, EBBO across all venues, and expected spreads by size and mechanism.

  • Volume curves and spread curves
  • EBBO across all venues
  • Expected spreads by size and mechanism
  • Mechanism comparison
  • Venue contribution analysis
  • Intraday regime classification
Why it matters

Pre-trade analytics reduce surprise. Knowing how spread conditions vary by time of day and regime lets desks set realistic expectations with portfolio managers - and time orders better.

Sample Output · Illustrative

Intraday spread profile - a typical session.

2 4 8 12 16 bps 09:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:30 open macro print close auction EBBO mid-quoted spread, 5-min bins

Spread conditions move materially through a single session - pre-trade analytics put a number on each moment.

05Choose the Right
Vehicle

Compare ETFs Within Peer Groups

When multiple products track the same benchmark, they don't all trade the same way. Compare on the metrics that determine total implementation cost - not just the ones on the factsheet.

  • Quoted and effective spreads
  • ADVT and available depth
  • Volatility and tracking efficiency
  • Venue fragmentation and liquidity distribution
  • Realised vs displayed liquidity
  • Historical peer ranking
Why it matters

Product selection isn't just about TER and tracking difference. Two ETFs tracking the same index can have materially different secondary market liquidity. Peer group analytics help pick the product that minimises total implementation cost - not just the headline expense ratio.

Sample Output · Illustrative

Peer group ETFs on the same benchmark.

Quoted spread (bps) ADVT (€m) A B C D E larger = better liquidity

Five ETFs tracking the same index - five different liquidity profiles.

06See the Full
Tape

See the Full ETF Market

Consolidated market share data covering every major exchange, RFQ platform, and regional venue - the deepest European history (since 2018), with coverage extending across global ETF markets. Including venues and mechanisms that most analytics providers miss: regional exchanges, RFQ platforms, and off-book activity.

  • Primary exchanges and MTFs
  • RFQ platforms
  • Regional exchanges (including German)
  • On-book and off-book activity
  • European history since 2018
  • Global ETF market coverage
Why it matters

You can't benchmark execution against a market you can't see. An EBBO calculated without RFQ or regional exchange data is incomplete - and best execution evidence built on it sits on the wrong foundation.

Sample Output · Illustrative

European ETF volume share by venue type.

EUROPEAN ETF VOLUME · VENUE MIX 32% 24% 18% 11% 10% Primary exchanges MTFs RFQ platforms Regional exchanges Off-book activity

Most third-party datasets miss the right-hand 39% of the bar.

Why xyt

What sets xyt apart.

Three properties of the platform that determine whether the analytics on the page are usable in production.

Complete Cross-Venue Coverage

RFQ platforms, regional exchanges, off-book activity - every venue, every protocol. EBBO and spread benchmarks are calculated on the actual tape, with the deepest history in Europe and coverage extending across global ETF markets. An EBBO that includes the right-hand side of the venue mix, not just primary exchanges.

Independent, Trusted Analytics

Market-wide data your committee and compliance can defend. The same independent benchmark used by ETF issuers, market makers, and exchanges - a common reference, not a vendor-specific view. Decisions, reviews, and reports that hold up under client, committee, and regulator scrutiny.

Flexible Integration

Dashboards, scheduled reports, Python API, SFTP delivery, AI-powered query tools. ETF best execution sits inside the same workflow as your equity TCA - production-ready out of the box, with the depth a quant team can build on. No re-platforming, no separate stack.

See Your ETF Execution Through an Independent Lens

Request your execution quality review.

A personalised snapshot showing how your ETF trades compare to market-wide benchmarks across venues, mechanisms, and size buckets. No commitment, no integration required.

Request Your Review Talk to ETF Specialists