PolyHistorical vs Resolved Markets: Historical Order Book Data Compared
Compare PolyHistorical and Resolved Markets for Polymarket historical data, visual strategy workflows, AI backtesting, API access, and developer use cases.
PolyHistorical vs Resolved Markets is a useful comparison if you are choosing between a developer-first historical data API and a strategy-builder-style backtesting product.
Quick Comparison
| Need | PolyHistorical | Resolved Markets |
|---|---|---|
| Developer API | REST API for markets, snapshots, order book depth, Binance spot depth, Binance futures depth, and replay workflows | Historical snapshots with visual strategy tooling |
| Backtesting style | Code-first API access plus Strategy Replay for execution-aware fills | Visual Strategy Builder and AI Backtest Agent positioning |
| Data focus | 300ms full-depth Polymarket books plus Binance BTC/USDT spot and futures context | Large snapshot archive across prediction-market categories |
| Best fit | Developers, quants, and researchers building custom models or bots | Users who prefer visual or natural-language strategy exploration |
Choose PolyHistorical If
- You need raw order book depth through an API.
- You want to run your own Python, JavaScript, or research pipeline.
- You care about execution simulation: spread, depth, slippage, and partial fills.
- You want Binance spot and futures order book context alongside Polymarket markets.
Choose Resolved Markets If
- You primarily want a visual strategy builder.
- You want an AI-assisted strategy interface before writing code.
- You are comparing many categories of resolved prediction markets from a single UI.
Bottom Line
Resolved Markets is strongest when the product experience is the backtester. PolyHistorical is strongest when the data and API are the platform for your own backtester, execution model, research notebook, or trading bot.