Best nft analytics in 2026

What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10

Corrections to the pool note, and one to the draft under test. FIRST, the wash-filter disclosure is better than 'a page that never states the rule': https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1 carries a 'Wash Trade Auto Filter' table enumerating the metrics filtered automatically in the web product, and both metric glossaries label each affected figure 'Suspected wash trades have been filtered out'. The rule is still unreproducible ('transaction cycles and transaction closed loops'), and the V1.1 API default is confirmed false in the published OpenAPI, so the score lands in the same band for a more precise reason: default-on in the UI, default-off in the API, both series recoverable. SECOND, the note says the docs 'claim no accuracy figure, saying only that performance is monitored for accuracy, stability and Interpretability'. That phrase is real but it is a link description in the 'Learn More' list on https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/gopricing, not the substance of the evaluation docs; https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/evaluation-method names MAPE as the primary metric and publishes its formula, omitting only every number. THIRD, I am softening a claim the draft made. The draft called it a flat contradiction that algorithm-principle says 'Parameters are calculated by linear regression according to transaction history' while gopricing says 'Normally, gradient-boosting models perform well in small data scenarios of the NFT market.' Read in context the gopricing line is a general remark — it is preceded by 'This floor price-based framework is suitable for any regression model' — and the Stanford Blockchain Review paper NFTGo links from that same page discusses GBDT at length specifically to reject it for poor interpretability in favour of the linear Premium Model. So this is an ambiguity about which estimator is actually fitted, not two flatly opposed claims; it remains a disclosure defect because no page states the shipped estimator unambiguously. Finally, a process note that matters for downstream copies: the formula 'Estimate Price = Floor Price + Intercept + Sum of (Trait Weights x Floor Price)' is rendered on the algorithm page as an IMAGE (files.readme.io/710898f-image.png), not as text — I confirmed this in the page's markdown source. An automated summariser returned it to an earlier pass as a verbatim quote. It is not quoted as text anywhere in this record and no downstream copy should either.

No price is published on any page I could load. The metering unit is published without a rate, and every URL the docs themselves name as the pricing/billing surface returns a gateway 404. https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/compute-units states: "To ensure more reasonable pricing for our services, we utilize "compute units" (CU) to describe the cost for each API on NFTGo, as the cost can vary significantly across different APIs. Your charges will be based on the volume of CUs consumed." and "Compute unit pricing enables us to offer fair and transparent pricing to developers. No more paying excessively for simple requests – you only pay for what you actually use." [en dash U+2013 verbatim]. The page then publishes multiple CU-cost tables, one per API category, with columns "API Endpoint | CU(s) | CU(s) Additional" — e.g. the rows "Get NFTs by collection | 800 | 0" and "Get rarity by NFT | 100 | 0" — but no currency amount per CU and no plan tiers. (The only "$" and "USD" strings on that page belong to a site-wide metric glossary blob present on every docs page, defining Whales and Blue Chip Index; none is a price.) THE DOCS NAME A PRICING PAGE AND A BILLING PAGE, AND BOTH ARE DEAD. https://docs.nftgo.io/v2.2/reference/introduction.md instructs: "You can view [Pricing](https://developer.nftgo.io/pricing) and choose the package plan that best suits your needs" — so package plans exist — and both that page and https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/introduction state the rate limit as a FREE-TRIAL limit with a paid upgrade path: "Currently, we have a rate limit of 5 requests per second (5RPS) for a free trial. You can upgrade your plan [here](https://developer.nftgo.io/billing)." The older OpenAPI description embedded on the reference pages, e.g. https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/get_pricing_pricing_v1_pricing_get, carries an unqualified variant: "Currently, we have a rate limit of 5 request per second (5RPS). If your project needs a specialized plan, you can contact us here." https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/gopricing says: "You can now try GoPricing for free!" and directs buyers to "Register on [NFTGo Developers](https://developer.nftgo.io/)" and "Obtain your private key through [Dashboard](https://developer.nftgo.io/overview)". PRICING-SHAPED URLS TRIED AND FAILED, all on 2026-08-14, all HTTP 404 with the identical application body {"error_msg":"404 Route Not Found"}: https://developer.nftgo.io/pricing, https://developer.nftgo.io/billing, https://developer.nftgo.io/login, https://developer.nftgo.io/overview, https://developer.nftgo.io/. Also HTTP 403 behind a Cloudflare interstitial and therefore INCONCLUSIVE, not read: https://nftgo.io/pricing, https://nftgo.io/data-api/, https://nftgo.io/developers. The developer portal the docs instruct buyers to register and pay on is therefore not readable, and no CU-to-currency rate is published anywhere I could load.