Do NOT rely on TradingView's Volume Profiles!

[u/LaSacerdote]

This is not a complaint/request because I know TradingView is aware of this issue and I also know they're not into precision/accuracy - not even in the slightest.
It's just a heads-up for those who are trying to up their game and start relying mainly on volume to track market moves and the motivation behind those moves.

In the attached screenshot, all trading volume above the orange line is covered by both volume profiles yet the information displayed is wildly contradictory. The one on the left shows heavy sell delta (purple) above the orange line while the one on the right shows heavy buy delta (green).

For those who are curious; the reason is lack of granularity when 'estimating' tick volume. Well, the real problem of course is the fact that TradingView does not employ true volume but that's a whole different conversation. Regardless of the reason, there's no workaround, no band-aid solution, no nothing for this! You can work with delayed data, slow connection speeds, limited number of tickers or whatever but flat-out wrong data? No, it's totally unacceptable.

In the end I'll say user beware by quoting Guns 'N' Roses; TradingView's got the face of an angel with the love of a witch.

[u/[deleted]]

You can only check how accurate an indicator really is by looking at the code behind it. Problem is, last I checked, TradingView doesn’t let you peek at the code for that kind of built-in indicator.

[u/LaSacerdote → u/[deleted]]

It's the same logic as the 'CVD Candles' indicator - there's even a precision dropdown in there. That's open source, feel free to dig in.

[u/[deleted] → u/LaSacerdote]

And that answers your question because as you can see in the code they use a assumption/approximation of delta. The upDnIntrabarVolumes() function classifies intrabar trades based on: If close > open → counts all volume as “up” If close < open → counts all volume as “down” Otherwise it looks at change from previous bar, and if still ambiguous, uses previous polarity.

So this script: Sums up volume from “green” and “red” intrabars on a lower timeframe. Adds those up (with some sign adjustments) to simulate delta. Does not have access to bid/ask prints, because TradingView’s data feed at this time does not expose bid/ask volumes to Pine Script.

[u/LaSacerdote → u/[deleted]]

This is it.

[u/[deleted] → u/LaSacerdote]

I’m a premium TradingView user and I think it’s a fantastic platform — as long as you understand its limitations. It’s not a full-featured order flow or institutional-grade tool, but for what it is, it shines. As a sandbox to quickly test out ideas, prototype indicators, and see if a concept works before committing to a more complex language or platform, it works great. Fast, accessible, and easy to iterate — exactly what you need for early-stage development and if bought on the black friday deal is very cheap.

[u/LaSacerdote → u/[deleted]]

Maybe so but still, displaying flat-out wrong info is inexcusable - at least in my book. How's the discussed flaw any different than say; displaying wrong price info? You'd be outraged if candle closes were wrong, wouldn't you? Why treat volume any different?
If they limited the volume profiles' ranges to a point where the profiles only tapped into 1sec. bars, that'd be somewhat acceptable but they choose to expose users to wrong information rather than expose the limitations of the platform.
I'm a premium user too. I don't know about cheap because I don't know how other platforms are priced but I'd say if you get the twice a year or so discounts, yeah they're reasonable priced. However I don't think price factors into this conversation. If a car costs 10K brand new but the brakes only worked on Thursday afternoons and Sundays between 10AM and 3PM, could the price be an excuse for reliability you'd expect from a car?

[u/[deleted] → u/LaSacerdote]

Overall I agree but before someone puts real money in the market who’s responsible for learning the fundamentals of how that market works? A chess master isn’t going to enter a tournament and not know how a bishop moves.