Best market-making games and simulators: six practice options
Price, format, depth and best fit
| Option / source | Price | Format | Depth / scope | Best for | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tradermath | Access varies; confirm current plan | Browser market games and trading exercises | Quoting, arbitrage and related interview skills | A range of trading-game formats | Plan access and assessment similarity need checking |
| MarketMakingGames.com | Fruit Market and Math Challenge free; subscription for all games | Multiplayer market-making and trading games | Interactive quoting and market scenarios | Practising with other participants | Free access covers selected games, not the full catalogue |
| Jane Street puzzles | Free | Public puzzle archive | Mathematical and creative problem solving | Careful collaborative reasoning | Adjacent practice: not a quoting simulator |
| NeetQuant | Free account | Interview simulators and games | Timed quantitative practice | Combining questions with simulator practice | Check the particular game rather than expecting a live-market model |
| QuantVault | Free subset; confirm game access | Problem practice and trading games | Interview-oriented concepts and technical courses | Pairing a game with a topic explanation | Some features may require paid access |
| SelfMadeQuant market-making game | Free; account needed after first reveal | Dice/card quoting against simulated counterparties | Adverse selection, conditional value and inventory | Understanding why a fill changes your information | Single-player teaching game, not an employer test replica |
Choose the skill you want to practise
For repeated two-sided quoting and an explanation of adverse selection, use a game that exposes its information and settlement rules. For interaction with other players, investigate a multiplayer market. For slow mathematical reasoning, a puzzle archive can be valuable—but it should be labelled as adjacent practice, rather than presented as a market simulator.
The table includes six options with deliberately different formats. This is a desk review of public descriptions, not a controlled comparison of learning outcomes or a claim that we have purchased every paid plan. Links identify the sources. Access conditions can change, especially for multiplayer rooms and assessment products.
Quoting is more than collecting a spread
Before playing, write the contract's settlement value and what each counterparty knows. A bid below your estimated value and an ask above it do not guarantee profit. Someone with better information can choose the side of your market that hurts you. Your inventory also exposes you to changes in the eventual value.
In the SelfMadeQuant game, dice or cards generate the contract and counterparties are revealed at settlement. The purpose is to connect each fill with conditional information and position risk. It is free with an account after the first reveal. It does not claim to reproduce a particular firm's proprietary assessment or exchange matching engine.
Multiplayer practice and broader catalogues
MarketMakingGames.com advertises real-time multiplayer games, with selected games free and a subscription covering the full catalogue. Tradermath offers a broader selection of browser market exercises. Check whether your intended mode is available to guests, free accounts or paying members, and whether other players need the same plan.
NeetQuant combines free-account interview practice with simulators and games. QuantVault combines problems, courses and game-based preparation with a free subset. These can be useful when a game reveals a probability or statistical gap that you want to repair immediately. Provider descriptions are evidence about advertised features, not independently verified employer test formats.
Why include Jane Street's puzzles?
The public puzzle archive is useful for creative mathematical reasoning. It does not substitute for sending bids and asks, tracking fills or managing inventory. Include it in a mixed preparation plan when explaining a logical argument is a weakness, while keeping dedicated quoting practice for market-making decisions.
Review a session with numbers
Record your fair-value estimate, bid, ask, fills and terminal inventory. Reconcile cash plus settlement value of inventory to final P&L. Then ask which losses followed from estimation error, informed selection or position size. A lucky settlement should not erase a poor decision, and an unlucky settlement need not imply the decision was irrational.
Try the same policy over several sessions before changing many parameters. Compare behaviour under the same rules and note when the information process changes. For a complementary exercise on liquidity and execution, use the order book simulator. For a conceptual introduction, read what market making is.