NakedPnL vs TradingView Portfolios - API-Verified vs Self-Reported
How an exchange-API-verified TWR registry compares with TradingView's user-reported portfolio tracking. Verification model, custody, and viewer trust.
- TradingView's Portfolios product lets users track their own holdings and trades, with risk metrics like Sharpe and Sortino. Entries are user-reported.
- NakedPnL ingests data from connected exchange accounts via read-only API keys (or wallet signatures for Polymarket and RSA-PSS for Kalshi) and publishes a SHA-256 hash-chained TWR registry.
- TradingView is excellent for personal tracking and analysis; NakedPnL is structured for independently re-verifiable public track records.
Verdict in one paragraph
TradingView Portfolios is a personal portfolio tracker built into TradingView. Users add buys, sells, deposits, and withdrawals; the product computes returns and exposes risk metrics like Sharpe and Sortino. The data origin is the user. NakedPnL is structurally different: traders connect read-only API keys at exchanges and the daily NAV reading is automated. The resulting TWR series is chained with SHA-256 and anchored to Bitcoin via OpenTimestamps. Both surfaces use the word 'portfolio' but answer different questions: TradingView answers 'how is my self-tracked portfolio performing?'; NakedPnL answers 'is this trader's track record real and re-verifiable from raw venue data?'
What they do differently
TradingView's documented Portfolios product builds from a user's own buy/sell/deposit/withdraw entries, not snapshots, and supports thousands of transactions per portfolio with risk metrics like beta, Sharpe, and Sortino. The result is high analytical value for the user. The model is fit for purpose for personal tracking and analysis. It is not designed as an external-facing diligence artefact.
NakedPnL is built around external verifiability. Daily NAV snapshots, a Decimal.js-precision TWR engine, content hashing of the canonicalised raw responses, chain-linked SHA-256, and Bitcoin anchoring via OpenTimestamps are all aimed at one outcome: an outside party should be able to verify a track record without trusting NakedPnL. Aggregate analytics like Sharpe are available internally but explicitly stripped from public surfaces, where TWR plus total PnL plus trade count are the user-visible metrics.
Feature comparison
| Criterion | NakedPnL | TradingView Portfolios |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Verified-performance publisher | Personal portfolio tracker inside TradingView |
| Data origin | Read-only API keys at venues; on-chain reconciliation for Polymarket | User-entered transactions |
| Custody model | None - read-only API keys | Not applicable - self-tracking tool |
| Verification mechanism | SHA-256 chain + OpenTimestamps Bitcoin anchor | User-attested entries |
| Independent re-verification | Yes - browser-side re-hash from raw exchange responses | No - entries are user-supplied |
| Public registry | Yes - opt-in, GDPR-consent gated | Personal tracker; not a public registry of verified performance |
| Multi-venue coverage | Binance, Bybit, OKX, IBKR, Kalshi, Polymarket | Stocks, ETFs, funds, crypto, FX as user-tracked entries |
| Performance metric | Time-weighted return (Decimal.js); public surfaces show TWR + total PnL + trade count | Returns plus risk metrics: beta, Sharpe, Sortino |
| Number of portfolios | One identity per trader; multi-venue rolled into one TWR | Up to 3 portfolios on paid plans per documented limits |
| Cost | Free registry; paid trader tiers | Free tier with limits; paid plans for higher limits |
| Open methodology | Yes - public reference implementation for hashing and TWR | Methodology summarised in support docs |
| Append-only history | Yes - chain hashes preserved | User can edit or delete past transactions |
| Privacy model | Opt-in, withdrawable GDPR consent for public listing | User's portfolio is private to the user |
| Regulatory category | Publisher of verified data | Charting and analysis platform with portfolio tracking |
Use cases
- User wanting to track personal trades and analyse Sharpe/Sortino in a single charting environment: TradingView Portfolios is excellent.
- Trader wanting an externally verifiable record where viewers do not need to trust the trader: NakedPnL's chain plus Bitcoin anchor is the right artefact.
- Allocator running diligence on a candidate manager: NakedPnL is structured for this; TradingView is not.
- Combined workflow: TradingView for analysis and visual workflow inside charts, NakedPnL for the public-facing chained track record.
Pricing
TradingView's Portfolios product has free and paid tiers with documented holding and transaction limits. NakedPnL is free for viewers; trader-side paid tiers exist for verification depth and analytics. The cost models reflect different audiences - personal tracker users on TradingView, allocators and traders publishing verified records on NakedPnL.
Why this comparison is hard
TradingView Portfolios and NakedPnL share the word 'portfolio' but solve different problems. TradingView is a tool the user trusts for their own analysis. NakedPnL is a publisher that produces evidence other parties can trust. The data origin (user vs API) is the structural difference; everything else flows from that.