The financial services industry generally, and the institutional securities brokerage business in which we operate, are extremely competitive, and we expect them to remain so for the foreseeable future. Our full suite of products does not directly compete with any particular firm; however, individual products compete with various firms and consortia.
Within the market making segment, our competition has been registered market making firms ranging from sole proprietors with very limited resources to large, integrated broker-dealers. Today, a range of market participants may compete with us for revenues generated by market making activities across one or more asset classes and geographies, including market participants, such as Citadel Securities, Susquehanna International Group LLP, Two Sigma, Jane Street, DRW Holdings, IMC, and Optiver.
In the execution services segment, our low-touch agency algorithmic execution and smart order routing products, as well as our high-touch agency execution and portfolio trading services, compete with agency-only and other sell-side firms. Our trading and portfolio analytics compete with offerings from several sell-side-affiliated and independent companies. Our POSIT and MatchIt ATSs (Alternative Trading Systems) compete with various national and regional securities exchanges, ATSs, Electronic Communication Networks, MTFs (Multilateral Trading Facilities) and systematic internalizers for trade execution services. Our EMS (Execution Management System), OMS (Order Management System), connectivity and RFQ (Request For Quotation) services compete with offerings from independent vendors, agency-only firms and other sell-side firms.
Some of our competitors in market making and execution services are larger than we are and have more captive order flow in certain assets. Technology and software innovation is a primary focus for us, rather than relying solely on the speed of our network. We believe that our scalable technology allows us to access new markets and increase volumes with limited incremental costs.
