Hi @Anufriyev ,

Thank you for posting this in the forum, I'm also facing the issue with mismatch result between the two library so I'm reaching out to the related team to check and will keep you updated.

Plus, as checked, the 'OPEN_PRC' might not be the proper field to be used to retrieve close price, could you try using 'TRDPRC_1' instead? However, this forum is dedicated to an API usage question hence, the moderators on this forum do not have deep expertise in every type of content available through Refinitiv products. Such expertise is available through Refinitiv Helpdesk, which can be reached via MyRefinitiv.

Thank you for the answer. Would be also great to hear an opining regarding the speed and api limits.

Hi @Anufriyev, Please note that

(i) we advise using the Refinitiv Data Library (RD Lib.) as you did in the 1st code cell in your question, and not the Eikon Data API (EDAPI) as per the 2nd which will be deprecatred this / next year

(ii) to compare these two requests (from the content and access layer), one would need to input comparable agrumets (e.g.: with the same start and end dates). I did this myself and got the same results:

import pandas as pd
import refinitiv.data as rd
rd.get_config().set_param(
    param=f"logs.transports.console.enabled", value=False)
session = rd.open_session("desktop.workspace")
# session.set_log_level("DEBUG")

bond_indexes = ['.BC144AG10P','.IBBEU01DF','.IBXXNSA6','.MERC8N0','.FTAUD-6M-EDEURT']
temp0 = rd.content.historical_pricing.summaries.Definition(
        bond_indexes,
        fields = ["OPEN_PRC"],
        start='2011-12-31',
        end='2024-12-31',
        # count=15, # 15 periods
        interval=rd.content.historical_pricing.Intervals.YEARLY
    ).get_data().data.df
temp_content = temp0
non_na_counts0 = temp0.count()
result_df = pd.DataFrame(
    {'RIC': non_na_counts0.index,
     'Content Layer Non-NA Values': non_na_counts0.values})
temp1 = rd.get_history(
    bond_indexes,
    fields='OPEN_PRC',
    start='2011-12-31',
    end='2024-12-31',
    interval='1Y')
temp_access = temp1
non_na_counts1 = temp1.count()
result_df['Access Layer Non-NA Values'] = non_na_counts1.values

It looks as though the discrapency came from the use of `count=15, # 15 periods` in the 1st call and a start & end date in the 2nd.

(iii) When it comes to the speed of data retrivals, would you mind letting us know

(a) Which application are you using alogside your code? (Eikon? Workspace?)

(b) Which version of this application you are using? (Eikon 4?)

(c) Which version of the RD Lib. you are using in your pyhton code? You can find this out in Python with the comand `rd.__version__`.

(d) If you can create logs and send them over to us (in a comment below, as an attachement)This step is a little dificult. I explain how one can create such logs in this article. You can leave step (d) aside for now if it's too dificult, and we'll only require it if all other investigatory steps are fruitless. I actually added Python code in the text (cell) above where such logs can be outputed in-line (in your Python IDE). To activate it, you only have to change `value=False` to `value=True`.

Dear @jonathan.legrand ,

Thank you for your detailed answer - useful as always from you.

I wasn't aware that count and start/end could lead to different results, so will be using start/end in the future.

Regarding you clarifying questions:

- For Eikon API I was using Eikon Desktop (v4.0.64012), for RDP Api I was using Workspace App (v1.24.159). It also of course could be that in our company the Workspace is not yet roll-out fully, but just testing (and I have a privilege to test it).

- The RD SDK is 1.5.1 version

- The log file I will try to send you later.

My concern in this case is not so about the speed, but more about api limits. I was expecting them to be comparable, but the limits at least for me have big gap as I described in my initial post.

regards,

Alex