WhitmanTrading

What Is the Percentage Price Oscillator?

Percentage price oscillator is the MACD calculation expressed as a percentage of the slower moving average rather than as an absolute price difference. That single change makes readings comparable between instruments and across time, which raw MACD values are not.

What Is the Percentage Price Oscillator? — illustrated on a chart Watch: The Best PPO Settings for Day Trading

Covered on this page: TradingView.

The PPO is MACD with one change: the output is a percentage rather than a price difference. That change is small, entirely sound, and fixes a real problem MACD has.

How it works

A price series with a percentage-based oscillator.
The PPO is MACD expressed as a percentage. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

MACD subtracts a slow moving average from a fast one. The result is a number of price units — dollars, points, whatever the instrument trades in.

A steady series where readings compare across instruments.
Which makes it comparable across instruments. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The PPO divides that difference by the slow average and multiplies by 100, so the output is the gap expressed as a percentage of the price level.

A rising series where raw MACD values are not comparable.
MACD in points is not. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

Everything else is identical. Same periods, same signal line, same histogram, same crossovers — the arithmetic differs only in that final division.

A falling series where both produce the same crossings.
Same signal, better units. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

Why the units matter

A choppy series where scale distorts raw readings.
It looks different in a choppy market. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

A MACD reading of 2 is meaningless alone. On a stock trading at 20 it is a 10% divergence between the averages; on an index at 5,000 it is 0.04%.

A slow series where price levels change over years.
And different again over a long horizon. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The same problem appears across time in one instrument. A stock that has gone from 10 to 200 produces MACD readings twenty times larger for identical percentage behaviour.

A calm series where both oscillators sit near zero.
A quiet stretch hides what it measures. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The PPO removes both problems at once. A reading of 1.5% is 1.5% whatever the instrument and whatever the price level, which makes historical comparison and cross-market screening actually possible.

A worked example

Take this site’s shared series. The median bar range is 0.493 and the price level sits near 100, so a typical bar is roughly half a percent.

A MACD reading of 0.5 on that series is about half a percent of price — comparable to one ordinary bar’s range.

A falling series with a stop level marked.
A stop fills where the market is. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

Move the same behaviour to an instrument priced at 1,000 and the MACD reading becomes 5, while the PPO stays at 0.5%.

Only one of those two numbers can be compared to anything. That is the whole argument, and it does not need any claim about predictive power to stand up.

What it does not fix

It is still a lagging indicator. Both moving averages are built from past bars, so the crossover arrives after the move that produced it, exactly as MACD’s does.

It still has three chosen periods. Fast, slow and signal — each a preference, none derived from the market.

And it still produces frequent signals in a range. On this site’s series, direction runs average 2.01 bars, so any crossover system fires constantly in the conditions that dominate.

So the PPO is not a better indicator, it is a better-expressed one. Anybody claiming it outperforms MACD is claiming something the arithmetic does not support — the signals cross at the same bars.

The original data

On this site’s shared series: median bar range 0.493, ninetieth percentile 1.101, largest bar 2.338. Direction runs average 2.01 bars with a longest of 11. A round trip costs 0.0098, about 2% of the median bar range.

A 2.01-bar average run is the limit on any crossover tool. Two moving averages change order frequently in a market that changes direction that often, and each change is a potential trade.

A candlestick chart annotated with the cost of a round trip.
A round trip costs a share of a bar. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

And the round trip is 2% of a typical bar. A crossover system acting on every cross in a ranging market pays that repeatedly for moves that do not persist, which is the cost that decides whether the approach is viable rather than anything about the indicator’s construction.

A price series with volume shown beneath.
Volume and price measure different things. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

The three periods and what they change

The fast period sets how quickly the oscillator responds. A shorter fast average tracks recent bars more closely, which moves the line sooner and moves it more often.

The slow period sets the baseline it is measured against. Lengthening it widens the gap the oscillator reports and makes readings drift further from zero during a sustained move.

The signal period smooths the oscillator itself. It is an average of the PPO line, and the crossover people trade is between those two - so the signal length decides how often a trade exists at all.

None of the three is derived from the market. They are the same 12, 26 and 9 that MACD shipped with decades ago, chosen for a different era of data and carried forward unexamined, which is worth knowing before treating them as a standard rather than a habit.

Where the percentage form genuinely helps

Screening across a universe. You can rank hundreds of stocks by PPO and the ranking means something; ranking them by raw MACD ranks them mostly by price level.

Comparing an instrument to its own history. A PPO extreme five years ago is comparable to one today, even if price has tripled in between.

And comparing across asset classes. An index, a currency pair and a single stock produce PPO readings on one scale, which raw MACD cannot do.

If you never do any of those things, the two are interchangeable. For somebody watching one instrument on one timeframe, the PPO offers nothing MACD does not — which is worth saying, because most indicator comparisons pretend a difference exists where none does.

When it fails

The characteristic failure is expecting the rescaling to improve the signal. The PPO is adopted because it sounds like a refinement of MACD, and the crossovers are then traded with more confidence than the MACD’s would have been.

But the two cross on the same bars. Dividing by the slow average changes the vertical scale, not when the lines meet. Every whipsaw MACD would have produced, the PPO produces identically, and expecting otherwise is expecting arithmetic to do something it cannot.

A candlestick series with a gap through a level.
A gap skips the level entirely. Illustrative chart - not real market data.

A second failure is comparing PPO levels between very different volatilities. The units are comparable; what counts as an extreme still is not.

A third is treating fixed thresholds as universal. A 2% reading is unremarkable in one market and rare in another.

A fourth is optimising the three periods on past data, which fits rather than tests.

A declining series cut short at a decision point.
The PPO crossed. Did the units help? Illustrative chart - not real market data.

And a fifth is assuming it leads price. It is computed from two averages of past bars and cannot contain information they did not.

MACD covers the indicator this rescales. Detrended price oscillator covers another attempt to make an oscillator comparable. And moving average covers the component both are built from.

What I actually do

This is the rare indicator whose improvement is real, small and completely uncontroversial. MACD’s output is in price units, so a reading of 2 means something different on a 30-dollar stock than on a 3,000-dollar index. The PPO fixes that by dividing. There is nothing else to it.

— Michael Whitman, from this video

This page is educational, not financial advice. Test every idea on your own charts before risking money. Some links on this page earn a commission if you buy through them. It costs you nothing and it does not decide what appears here or in what order — how these pages are made is set out in our methodology.