it's the numbers that count here. Your two pivots at 1.6773 and 1.6800 are far enough apart to be coming from different data as opposed to different calculation methods. I know you have the same data of course, what I mean is that the indicator is possibly reading different data into the monthly (in this case) period. Perhaps ICT's version determines start and end of periods in a non-standard way or - gasp! - it may even contain an error. On the other hand, they are also close enough for the difference to be related to calculation method. Maybe whoever wrote ICT's version just likes rounding :)) Jokes aside, at the end of the day I can only say that mine uses standard techniques of programming and calculation methods and has no errors in deriving or accurately displaying the levels. The other version is just different. Neither can claim superiority. You can determine superiority based on what works for you. ;) As an exercise to show how little this matters I placed ICT's version (which I already had) on my chart and the monthly pivot is at 1.6798. (I assume we are both talking about GBPUSD.) This is reassuringly close to your 1.6800 but not the same. The indicator I built for you comes in at 1.6774 and a quick look under the hood revealed that this is rounded from 1.67737 so there may be little more than a whisker between our data sets. A classic case of "the same but different" at every turn. I then changed the calculation method from standard to alternate (adds the open value to the pivot calculation and divides by 4) and dropped it onto the same chart to get a comparison. The differences are significant. A lot of traders use the alternate version in preference to the standard, for various reasons. Take a look at the differences.