While I don't use Quicken (yet &ndash; though I am considering it) I'd trust the online balance, i.e. the balance reported by your bank.  The other ending balance is calculated by Quicken based on transactions it has in its database.  There are at least a couple of likely reasons why there may be a discrepancy:


Data errors:  If you do have extraneous or missing transactions, it could throw off the Quicken balance until they're corrected.  I use Microsoft Money and monitor my transactions carefully and I won't change that practice if I switch to other software.  When it comes to financial software:  "trust, but verify."  Not only do the financial software people have to get it right &ndash; so does your bank!  Perhaps I'm jaded; my first experience downloading transactions didn't go very well :-)
Timing: Another possible discrepancy is that your bank's online balance may be reflecting transactions that are pending.  For instance, I've noticed before that my credit card "available balance" as reported online by my financial institution reflected some charges that were authorized but not yet posted to the account.  It is especially noticeable when there's a large charge.  If your bank "knows about" transactions that are not yet posted, it might reflect the expected amounts in your online balance, whereas Quicken would have no transaction detail yet so it would be unable to factor them into the calculation of the ending balance.


I can't comment on the specific features in 2008 or 2010 with regards to duplicate transactions, but perhaps someone else can comment on that part of your question.

Quicken 2008 Online Balance vs. Ending Balance?
Which SQL-query will be executed with less time — query with WHERE-clause or without, when:


WHERE-clause deals with indexed field (e.g. primary key field)
WHERE-clause deals with non-indexed field


I suppose when we're working with indexed fields, thus query with WHERE will be faster.
Am I right?

Thanks!
