From FS2.5 to UF3.0: The Duel of the Two Titans in Securities Core Trading Systems' Xinchuang Initiative

📌 Core Argument The domestic IT substitution (Xinchuang) for China’s securities core trading systems has entered “deep water” featuring a duel between two titans: Kingstar’s FS2.5 and Hundsun’s UF3.0. They represent two distinct engineering paths: FS2.5 pursues “Native Xinchuang + KOCA Cloud-Native Base + K-LDP Low-Latency Platform,” emphasizing a “standard answer” built for domestic IT from the very first line of code; UF3.0 pursues “Bimodal IT (Agile & Stable) + JRES3.0 + Light-LDP/LightDB Proprietary Base,” emphasizing an “evolutionary answer” with progressive upgrades on the existing ecosystem.

As of 2025-2026, Hundsun’s UF3.0 has gone live in 11 brokerages (with China Merchants Securities completing a full switchover for millions of clients), while Kingstar’s FS2.5 boasts an overall project coverage rate of over 50% among the TOP 10 head brokerages, with Huaxing Securities achieving the industry’s first full-stack Xinchuang single-track operation for a complete counter system. The underlying clash is not about “whose technology is more advanced,” but a direct collision between two philosophies—“Legacy Evolution vs. Native Reconstruction”—ahead of the 2027 Xinchuang deadline.

I. The Duopoly: Why FS2.5 vs UF3.0

#

1.1 The Xinchuang Deadline for Core Trading System Replacement

#

In November 2023, the Securities Association of China (SAC) released the Three-Year Improvement Plan for Securities Companies’ Network and Information Security (2023-2025), requiring average IT investment to be no less than 10% of average net profit or 7% of average operating revenue from 2023 to 2025. This policy directly accelerated the Xinchuang transformation of core systems in the securities industry.

The industry consensus on the 2027 regulatory timeline means: by 2027, central and state-owned enterprises must achieve 100% Xinchuang substitution. The core trading system, the “pearl in the crown” of finance, must be replaced within this window.

1.2 The Duopoly Amidst the “Four Titans”

#

The new-generation core trading systems for brokerages currently form a “Battle of the Four Titans”:

Why are FS2.5 and UF3.0 the “Two Titans”?

• Hundsun and Kingstar are veteran leaders with over 20 years in securities IT, possessing the deepest financial business know-how and client base.
• Both have achieved scaled implementation: UF3.0 is live in 11 brokerages; FS2.5 covers over 50% of overall projects in the TOP 10 head brokerages.
• The difference in their technical routes is the most representative—Legacy Evolution vs. Native Reconstruction.

1.3 The Market Footprint

#

Hundsun UF3.0:

• Cumulative existing client scale exceeds 50 million.
• Live in 11 brokerages, with over 20 signed partner institutions.
• China Merchants Securities went fully live in July 2025, completing a full switchover for millions of clients.
• Traditional advantages in ecosystem compatibility and full-business scenario coverage for small and medium-sized brokerages.

Kingstar FS2.5:

• Half of the head brokerages have chosen Kingstar products (based on newly initiated next-gen tenders).
• Overall project coverage rate in TOP 10 head brokerages exceeds 50%.
• Upgrading next-gen systems for China Galaxy, CSC (China Securities), CICC, East Money, GF Securities, Guosen, and Guotai Haitong.
• Successfully won the XC (Xinchuang) project for core business systems including centralized trading for a top-tier brokerage in May 2026.

II. Architectural Philosophy: Bimodal IT vs. Native Xinchuang

#

2.1 Hundsun UF3.0: The “Evolutionary Answer” of Bimodal IT

#

Architectural Base: JRES3.0 Cloud-Native Base + Proprietary Light-LDP Low-Latency Middleware + LightDB Distributed Database + MDB In-Memory Database.

Core Design Philosophy: “Bimodal IT” Architecture

• Stable Mode: Core systems for trading and clearing, prioritizing security and stability.
• Agile Mode: Core systems for accounts and operations, driving rapid iteration through demand and innovation.

Technical Features:

• Comprehensive decoupling of trading, accounts, and clearing via Domain-Driven Design (DDD).
• Supports 7×24 trading and elastic scaling.
• Proprietary in-memory database UFT-MDB with core processing latency <50 microseconds.
• Single-node pure order throughput reaches 150,000 TPS.
• Overall processing capacity increased by 70 times compared to the previous generation.

Founder Securities Case (Live in Dec 2024):

• UF3.0 in-memory trading went live in select branches, marking its first production deployment in securities trading and complete full-stack Xinchuang application.
• Supports 45 major categories and 212 business items, fully covering SSE, SZSE, BSE, and NEEQ businesses.
• Trading performance achieved a 100x leap over traditional physical database processing.
• Achieved smooth, imperceptible switchover upon launch, supporting lossless second-level emergency fallback.

2.2 Kingstar FS2.5: The “Standard Answer” of Native Xinchuang

#

Architectural Base: KOCA Open Cloud-Native Platform + K-LDP Low-Latency Tech Platform (Three core components: KGMS + HARE + KMDB).

Core Design Philosophy: “Business Decoupling, Advanced Tech, Autonomous & Controllable” + “Loose Coupling between Trading Channels and Comprehensive Business Base.”

Technical Features:

• Layered design based on order channels + comprehensive business base; separating competitive bidding trading from non-competitive businesses.
• K-LDP is fully implemented in C/C++, combined with various low-latency NICs and FPGA/GPU hardware acceleration.
• Runs on diverse CPU architectures including x86 and ARM.
• Core trading latency enters the microsecond level; clearing performance enters the minute level.

KOCA-LDP Three Core Components:

Huaxing Securities Case (Live in Dec 2025):

• The industry’s first full-stack Xinchuang single-track operation for a complete counter system.
• Completed lossless migration of full data and one-time smooth switchover for all clients.
• Achieved full-stack Xinchuang and single-track operation from application software to underlying hardware/software.
• Trading performance upgraded from milliseconds to microseconds.
• Covers dozens of subsystems, unifying trading, clearing, accounts, funds, authentication, operations, data, and O&M.

2.3 The Fundamental Divergence in Philosophy

#

💡 Key Difference: UF3.0’s philosophy is “compatible with legacy, smooth evolution”—bearing the weight of Hundsun’s 20+ years of client ecosystem while achieving generational tech upgrades. FS2.5’s philosophy is “native reconstruction, standard answer”—built from scratch on Kingstar’s proprietary KOCA cloud-native platform, carrying no historical baggage.

III. Xinchuang Progress & Cases: The Engineering Showdown

#

3.1 Hundsun UF3.0’s Xinchuang Report Card

#

Full-Stack Xinchuang Adaptation:

• Completed full-stack adaptation from chips and servers to databases.
• Achieved complete full-stack Xinchuang application at Founder Securities.
• “Bimodal IT” supports smooth Xinchuang transition; delivery cycle shortened by 50%, hardware costs reduced by 35%.

Panorama of 11 Live Brokerages (As of Sept 2025):

Deep Dive into Benchmark Cases:

• China Merchants Securities (Millions-level Switchover): Partnered since 2021, fully live in Jul 2025. Industry’s first cloud-native architecture supporting millions of clients. Transformed from “trading channel support” to a “wealth management value creation engine.”
• Founder Securities (Full-Stack Benchmark): Started Sep 2024, live Dec 2024. Completed three major battles in 3 months. 100x performance leap.
• Caixin Securities (Jan 2026): Next-gen core trading (options) system live. First identical-structure landing of UF3.0 stock options in-memory trading, utilizing Kunpeng + OceanBase + Kylin.

3.2 Kingstar FS2.5’s Xinchuang Report Card

#

Native Xinchuang Architecture:

• Natively supports Xinchuang without extra retrofit; core tech fully self-developed.
• Deeply adapted to Kunpeng, Ascend, forming a “Kunpeng + Kylin + GaussDB” localized architecture.

Scaled Implementation in Head Brokerages:

Deep Dive into Benchmark Cases:

• Huaxing Securities (Single-Track Benchmark): First full-stack single-track complete counter. Lossless data migration, one-time smooth switchover. Covers dozens of subsystems.
• CICC Wealth (Industry Benchmark): Next-gen on-exchange trading platform supporting millions of clients. FS2.5 achieves “Xinchuang upon launch.”
• Top Brokerage XC Project (May 2026): 27-year partnership. Systematic architectural reshaping, undertaking full business functions of 7 core systems, achieving a “Five-Unified” architecture.

3.3 Key Differences in Xinchuang Progress

#

📌 Key Insight: Hundsun leads in “number of live brokerages” and delivered an industry benchmark in millions-level full switchover; Kingstar leads in “overall project coverage in head brokerages” and delivered a more disruptive answer in “full-stack Xinchuang single-track operation.”

IV. Performance & High Availability: The Microsecond War

#

4.1 Performance Comparison

#

4.2 High Availability & Disaster Recovery

#

• Hundsun UF3.0: Caixin case uses a 5-layer HA design; supports smooth imperceptible switchover and lossless second-level emergency fallback; supports playback replay to ensure data consistency.
• Kingstar FS2.5: Based on trading/clearing separation, supports multi-dimensional node splitting (by client, business, branch, trading unit); the only one in the industry supporting single-client cross-branch nodes; distributed architecture with lightweight order data between nodes for rapid scaling.

4.3 Business Innovation Differences

#

• UF3.0 (Agile Innovation): CMS transforming into a “wealth management engine”; Orient building unified client/account/asset services; Founder building a distributed low-latency system based on business orchestration.
• FS2.5 (Base Reconstruction): Industry-first wealth account system (One-Account-Pass); diversified commission charging (Fee Middle Platform); full-asset centralized clearing and unified bookkeeping; full-time historical data service (20+ years query).

V. Migration Paths & Engineering Risks

#

5.1 Hundsun UF3.0: Low-Risk Legacy Evolution

#

• Strategy: Evolved from UF2.0, compatible with legacy. Founder completed 3 major battles in 3 months; imperceptible switchover; second-level fallback.
• Advantages: Low migration risk, no massive peripheral retrofit, ideal for SME brokerages with large legacy client bases.
• Challenges: Head brokerage incremental market expansion is blocked; benchmark projects like CMS face prolonged cycles; architectural standardization lacks a unified mature paradigm.

5.2 Kingstar FS2.5: High-Risk Heterogeneous Replacement

#

• Strategy: Rebuilt on KOCA, no historical baggage. Huaxing achieved lossless full data migration and one-time smooth switchover.
• Advantages: Pure architecture, zero tech debt, natively Xinchuang, most widely adopted for next-gen Xinchuang counters in head brokerages.
• Challenges: Heterogeneous replacement carries inherently higher risks; cross-cycle full-business ecosystem support needs improvement; ecosystem compatibility must be re-accumulated.

5.3 Migration Path Comparison

#

VI. Ecosystem & Selection Logic: Why Choose A over B

#

6.1 Hundsun UF3.0’s Ecosystem Advantage

#

• Legacy Moat: 30+ years in capital markets, 50M+ existing clients, traditional advantage in full-business coverage.
• Selection Logic: Existing Hundsun clients prefer UF3.0 (smooth evolution); SME brokerages prefer it; brokerages needing full-business coverage.

6.2 Kingstar FS2.5’s Ecosystem Advantage

#

• Native Xinchuang Moat: Anchored in native Xinchuang base, full-stack localized solutions landed in multiple head brokerages.
• Selection Logic: First choice for head brokerages building new Xinchuang counters; brokerages needing full-stack single-track operation; brokerages seeking systematic architectural reshaping.

6.3 Five Key Dimensions for Selection

#

Choosing between the two essentially answers five questions:

1. What is the legacy system? If Hundsun UF2.0, UF3.0 is lowest risk. If Kingstar legacy, FS2.5 is smoothest.
2. What is the Xinchuang goal? “Full-stack single-track” -> FS2.5. “Full-chain + smooth transition” -> UF3.0.
3. What is the business scale? Millions-level switchover -> UF3.0 verified. Head overall counter -> FS2.5 >50% coverage.
4. What is the risk appetite? Low risk -> UF3.0. High risk/high reward -> FS2.5.
5. How tight is the timeline? Before 2027, UF3.0’s standardized delivery is advantageous; for architectural purity, FS2.5 is the standard answer.

VII. 2026-2027 Outlook: Attack and Defense

#

7.1 Hundsun’s Defense and Offense

#

• Defense: Protect legacy ecosystem, deepen full-business landing in the 11 live brokerages, push complete production for benchmarks like CMS.
• Offense: Accelerate head brokerage expansion, perfect architectural standardization and full-chain Xinchuang paradigms.

7.2 Kingstar’s Defense and Offense

#

• Defense: Protect head brokerage overall counter market (>50% TOP 10), deepen replicability of Huaxing/CICC cases, improve cross-cycle ecosystem.
• Offense: Extend FS2.5 success to mid-sized brokerages; expand “Kunpeng+Kylin+GaussDB” ecosystem influence.

7.3 Variables Beyond the Duopoly

#

• Apex A5: Completed Oracle replacement in 6 brokerages, the fastest in Xinchuang progress. A “third variable” to watch.
• HuaRui ATP T7: Dominates ultra-low latency and high-frequency quantitative trading with 100+ live production systems.

7.4 Final Verdict Before the 2027 Deadline

#

By the 2027 regulatory deadline:

• Hundsun UF3.0 will likely exceed 20 live brokerages.
• Kingstar FS2.5’s TOP 10 coverage is expected to break 70%.
• The格局 (landscape) will form: “Hundsun dominates SME legacy evolution; Kingstar dominates head brokerage native Xinchuang.”

VIII. Conclusion: Two Paths, One Goal

#

Back to the core question: What is the FS2.5 vs UF3.0 duel really about?

💡 It is not about “whose tech is more advanced,” but a direct collision between “Legacy Evolution” and “Native Reconstruction” ahead of the 2027 Xinchuang deadline.

Hundsun UF3.0’s Answer: Bimodal IT, progressive evolution on the legacy ecosystem. Core advantage: legacy ecosystem & engineering capability. Challenge: head market expansion & standardization.

Kingstar FS2.5’s Answer: Native Xinchuang, ground-up reconstruction on KOCA. Core advantage: native Xinchuang & pure architecture. Challenge: heterogeneous replacement risk & cross-cycle ecosystem.

A Consensus:

📌 Author’s Note: The duel is the concrete landing of FinTech autonomous & controllable strategy in the “pearl in the crown” scenario. Hundsun chose “surgery on a giant’s shoulders,” Kingstar chose “building a skyscraper on a new foundation.”

There is no absolute superiority, only contextual fit:

• If you are a Hundsun legacy client seeking low-risk migration → UF3.0 is the pragmatic choice.
• If you are a head brokerage building a new Xinchuang counter seeking native architecture → FS2.5 is the thorough answer.
• If you must complete replacement before the 2027 deadline → Both can deliver; the key is matching your legacy foundation and risk appetite.

By the 2027 deadline, when FS2.5 achieves “Xinchuang upon launch” in head brokerages, and UF3.0 achieves the first full-stack in-memory Xinchuang at Founder Securities, the “heart” of China’s securities core trading systems will finally be beating to the rhythm of China’s own code.

Appendix: FS2.5 vs UF3.0 Tech Selection Cheat Sheet

#