CCXT vs ccapi

ccapi is, in its own words, "a header-only C++ library for streaming market data and executing trades directly from cryptocurrency exchanges (i.e. the connections are between your server and the exchange server without anything in-between)". Its API "closely follows Bloomberg's API", and the README states it "is ultra fast thanks to very careful optimizations".

CCXT covers the same ground — market data and order entry across many venues behind one API — but is designed for breadth and portability rather than for the microsecond. The question that decides between them is straightforward: is latency the constraint on your system, or is coverage?

TL;DR

• Pick ccapi if you are writing a latency-sensitive execution system in C++, you trade a handful of major venues, and you are willing to build the library and its dependencies from source. Compiled C++ with no interpreter in the request path is a real advantage and no amount of library design closes it.
• Pick CCXT if you need 104 exchanges rather than about twenty, unified symbols and typed structures rather than the venue's own instrument ids and string maps, and a package install rather than a Boost-and-OpenSSL build.
• Running both is reasonable. ccapi on the hot path for the two or three venues that matter, CCXT for the long tail, reference data, account reconciliation and everything written in Python.

At a glance

_{Figures verified September 2026 against CCXT v4.5.77, and against the ccapi GitHub repository, README, commit history and releases feed read on 3 September 2026. Install counts from the npm and PyPI APIs.}

The same job, written both ways

ccapi's Python binding is used here, because that is where the two are most directly comparable. All ccapi snippets are from the examples in its repository.

Get recent trades

import ccxt

exchange = ccxt.coinbase()
trades = exchange.fetch_trades('BTC/USD', limit=1)
for t in trades:
    print(t['symbol'], t['side'], t['amount'], t['price'])

Two things differ beyond the line count. First, the instrument: BTC/USD is CCXT's unified symbol, resolved to whatever the venue calls it; "BTC-USD" is Coinbase's own id, and the same pair on bybit is "BTCUSDT" and on binance-us is "BTCUSD". Second, the result: CCXT hands back a list of trade structures with typed fields; ccapi hands back an Event whose Messages carry Elements, each a map of names to string values such as LAST_PRICE, LAST_SIZE and TRADE_ID.

Place a limit order

import ccxt

exchange = ccxt.binanceus({'apiKey': '...', 'secret': '...'})
order = exchange.create_order('BTC/USD', 'limit', 'buy', 0.0005, 20000)
print(order['id'], order['status'])

ccapi reads credentials from environment variables such as BINANCE_US_API_KEY and BINANCE_US_API_SECRET, or from SessionConfigs. The order is a parameter map sent through the session; the response arrives later in processEvent, not as a return value — unless you opt into a blocking Session::sendRequest, which the README documents.

CCXT returns an order structure from the call, with id, status, filled, remaining, average and fee populated the same way on every venue.

Stream an order book

import ccxt.pro
import asyncio

async def main():
    exchange = ccxt.pro.okx()
    while True:
        orderbook = await exchange.watch_order_book('BTC/USDT')
        print(orderbook['bids'][0], orderbook['asks'][0])

asyncio.run(main())

Both maintain a real order book — ccapi emits depth snapshots by default and updates if you set MARKET_DEPTH_RETURN_UPDATE=1, and it can conflate to a fixed interval with CONFLATE_INTERVAL_MILLISECONDS. The difference is push versus pull. ccapi's callback fires on the library's thread; CCXT's watch_order_book returns to your coroutine, so the deciding and the sending live in the same function.

Where the differences actually bite

Coverage, and how to read ccapi's exchange list

ccapi's market-data list has 30 entries, but several are product lines of the same venue: binance, binance-usds-futures and binance-coin-futures are three entries; so are huobi, huobi-usdt-swap and huobi-coin-swap; likewise bitget/bitget-futures, gateio/gateio-perpetual-futures, kraken/kraken-futures, kucoin/kucoin-futures and mexc/mexc-futures. Counted as venues, the list is 21. The execution-management list has 28 entries, and FIX covers three exchanges.

CCXT covers 104 venues with REST and 76 with WebSocket, plus 7 prediction-market venues in ccxt.prediction, and models product lines as options on one client rather than as separate exchange ids:

exchange = ccxt.binance({'options': {'defaultType': 'future'}})
order = exchange.create_order('BTC/USDT:USDT', 'limit', 'buy', 0.001, 60000)

Symbols and structures

This is the part that shows up when you add the second venue. ccapi passes the exchange's own instrument id straight through, so your code carries a per-venue naming table, and its results are name-to-value string maps you parse and convert yourself. That is a deliberate design: it is the cheapest thing to do at runtime, and it is what you want if you are counting nanoseconds.

CCXT normalises both sides. BTC/USDT means the same pair everywhere, BTC/USDT:USDT is the linear perpetual, and fetch_order_book returns the same structure on every venue with numeric types already parsed. Market metadata — tick size, step size, minimum notional — comes from load_markets(), with amount_to_precision and price_to_precision built on string arithmetic so quantities do not drift through float rounding.

Getting it built

CCXT is pip install ccxt, npm install ccxt, go get github.com/ccxt/ccxt/go/v4, a NuGet package, a Composer package or a Maven artifact.

ccapi is a source build. For C++ you supply C++17 and OpenSSL (libssl, libcrypto), plus Boost 1.87.0 and RapidJSON 1.1.0 headers, plus hffix 1.4.1 if you want FIX, plus ZLIB for some huobi and bitmart paths and ws2_32 on Windows. You then define enablement macros in the compiler command line — CCAPI_ENABLE_SERVICE_MARKET_DATA, CCAPI_ENABLE_EXCHANGE_BYBIT and so on — for exactly the services and exchanges you need. The README documents tested platforms as macOS with Clang, Linux with GCC and Windows with MinGW.

The bindings are a second build on top: SWIG and CMake, cmake -DBUILD_PYTHON=ON -DBUILD_VERSION=1.0.0 .., then artifacts under binding/build/<language>/packaging/<version>. Running them needs the shared library on the right path — java.library.path for Java, LD_LIBRARY_PATH for C#, source export_compiler_options.sh before go build for Go, node-gyp for JavaScript. That is all documented and it works; it is simply a different amount of setup from a package manager install.

Eight languages as first-class targets

CCXT's non-TypeScript builds are generated from the same source and published as native packages, with the same method names and return structures in each. ccapi's bindings are SWIG wrappers over the C++ library — the README says each "is nearly identical to C++ API and covers nearly all the functionalities from C++ API" — which means the API you learn is the C++ one, expressed in Python or Go, and the runtime is still the C++ library you compiled.

The escape hatch, both ways

Neither library boxes you in. ccapi's is GENERIC_PUBLIC_REQUEST and GENERIC_PRIVATE_REQUEST: you pass HTTP_METHOD, HTTP_PATH and optionally HTTP_QUERY_STRING and HTTP_BODY, and the library signs and sends it. There is a GENERIC_PUBLIC_SUBSCRIPTION for raw WebSocket payloads too.

CCXT's is the implicit API: every endpoint of every exchange is generated as a named, callable method — 808 for binance, 446 for okx, 404 for bybit — with signing, timestamping, rate-limit accounting and error mapping applied. The difference is discovery: you can list and autocomplete CCXT's implicit methods, whereas ccapi's generic request expects you to bring the path from the venue's documentation.

What ccapi does better

These are real, and the first one is not close:

• Latency. ccapi is compiled C++ in the request path — no interpreter, no garbage collector, no marshalling layer between your strategy and the socket. Because it is header-only, the whole library can be inlined into your binary, and the README's performance guidance is to turn on optimisation flags and link-time optimisation and to compile in only the services and exchanges you use. CCXT's Python, JavaScript, PHP, C#, Go and Java builds all add parsing and normalisation work in a managed or interpreted runtime. For most systems network round-trip time dominates that difference; for a market maker it does not, and that is exactly the case ccapi is built for. Neither project publishes a head-to-head benchmark, so treat the argument as architectural rather than measured.
• FIX sessions. ccapi implements FIX for binance, coinbase and gemini through hffix, with a subscription-based workflow over tag-value pairs. CCXT has no FIX support at all. If your venue relationship runs over FIX, this is decisive.
• Receipt timestamps on every message. Each Message carries both time — the exchange's reported timestamp — and timeReceived, the library's own receive time, reachable through getTime/getTimeReceived in C++ and getTimeUnix/getTimeReceivedUnix elsewhere. Venue latency becomes measurable without extra plumbing.
• Conflation and batching as first-class options. CONFLATE_INTERVAL_MILLISECONDS with a CONFLATE_GRACE_PERIOD_MILLISECONDS gives you fixed-interval snapshots instead of every tick, and events can be handled in "batching" mode rather than "immediate" mode when the consumer is an archiver rather than a strategy. CCXT has no equivalent built-in throttle on the delivery side.
• Compile-time trimming. Enabling only CCAPI_ENABLE_SERVICE_MARKET_DATA and the two exchanges you trade produces a binary containing only that code. CCXT ships every exchange in one package by design.
• A Bloomberg-shaped API. Session, Request, Subscription, Event, Message, Element, correlationId — if your team already writes against BLPAPI, none of that needs explaining.

If you are building a low-latency C++ trading system against a small set of major venues, ccapi is the better tool and this page is not arguing otherwise.

Migrating from ccapi to CCXT

Start with Install, then the Manual.

FAQ

Is CCXT slower than ccapi? In the request path, yes, and the reason is structural rather than fixable: ccapi is compiled C++ inlined into your binary, while CCXT parses and normalises in Python, JavaScript, PHP, C#, Go or Java. For strategies where the network round trip dominates — which is most of them — the difference is not what limits you. For latency-sensitive market making it is, and ccapi is built for that case. Neither project publishes a comparative benchmark.

Does ccapi support as many exchanges as CCXT? No. ccapi's README lists 30 market-data entries spanning 21 distinct venues, and 28 execution-management entries. CCXT supports 104 exchanges with REST, 76 of them with WebSocket, plus 7 prediction-market venues.

Can I use ccapi from Python without writing C++? Yes. It ships bindings for Python, Java, C#, Go and JavaScript, built from source with SWIG and CMake, and the README says each covers nearly all the C++ functionality. You build the binding yourself rather than installing a published package, and the compiled library has to be reachable at runtime through the appropriate library path.

Does CCXT support FIX? No. CCXT speaks REST and WebSocket. ccapi implements FIX for binance, coinbase and gemini. If FIX is a requirement, that is a reason to use ccapi, or a venue-specific FIX engine, for that leg.

Do I need CCXT Pro separately for WebSockets? No. CCXT Pro is included in the ccxt package under MIT. Use ccxt.pro.<exchange> and the watch* methods.

Can I run both? Yes, and it is a sensible split. ccapi handles the venues where latency decides the trade; CCXT handles breadth — the long tail of exchanges, market metadata, account reconciliation and anything written in Python or Go. Both are MIT, so nothing in the licensing complicates it.

Next steps

• Install CCXT in your language
• Manual — unified structures and conventions
• CCXT Pro manual — the watch* streaming methods
• Supported exchanges
• More comparisons