Sentiment Analytics

Sentiment Analytics evaluated across published predictive evidence, published price and free-tier substance, documented bot filtering, and source and asset coverage.

8providers tracked

7ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)

12 November 2026Ranking snapshot

10 November 2026oldest read · due 25 Dec

Independent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works

Set your country and amount to see your costs ·

7 providers match your requirements

Out of 7 ranked providers. 0 excluded.

What this ranks

Ranked here: sentiment analytics services that sell social signal on assets, for a reader about to pay for it who wants to know whether it has been tested.Not ranked here: analytics that do not sell a social signal, whatever other data or coverage they offer.7 of the 8 assessed are ranked; 1 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works

LunarCrush

How LunarCrush was chosen

Leads this ranking on Published predictive evidence

Social feed aggregation across six platforms sold as Galaxy Score and AltRank composites plus an API and MCP server.

80 out of 100published score, #1 of all 7 worldwide

Evidence

High

4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.

Published predictive evidenceSource and asset coverage

Why it leads

LunarCrush is 1 point ahead of Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI), mainly because it scores higher on its published predictive evidence and its manipulation filtering documented.
Best in this ranking on published predictive evidence and manipulation filtering documented
Ahead of Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) on published predictive evidence (+5.6 points) and manipulation filtering documented (+3.1 points)

Tradeoff

Published price and what free survives: 5 points below the best in this ranking

Monthly price

$90/mo

Sort by

#ProviderMonthly priceCompare

Social, on-chain and development metrics over...

79 out of 100

Institutional terminal and quant API

61 out of 100

A free single 0-100 Bitcoin sentiment number

60 out of 100

Credit-metered REST and SSE sentiment feeds

59 out of 100

Attention and mindshare rankings over crypto...

56 out of 100

$833/mofee read 10 November 2026 · source

Hourly 0-1 sentiment scores across 93...

53 out of 100

Not confirmed (1) — not ranked until its source is read again; listed, not ruled out.

cookie.fun (Cookie DAO) · Re-read pending: cookie.fun now opens Cookie Pro, an AI research app; the product this row described is being re-read.

Compare providers (0)

See key differences in features, fees, security and more.

Published price and what free survives

Published price and free-tier substance

25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Published price and what free survives (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)	10	60
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)	9	79
StockGeist Crypto Sentiment API	8	59
LunarCrush	5	80
Kaito Pro	4	56
Augmento	2	53
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)	1	61

Source and asset coverage

20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Source and asset coverage (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)	9	79
LunarCrush	8	80
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)	5	61
Augmento	4	53
StockGeist Crypto Sentiment API	3	59
Kaito Pro	3	56
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)	1	60

Published predictive evidence

30% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Published predictive evidence (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
LunarCrush	8	80
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)	5	79
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)	4	61
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)	3	60
Augmento	3	53
StockGeist Crypto Sentiment API	2	59
Kaito Pro	1	56

Manipulation filtering documented

Documented bot filtering

25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Manipulation filtering documented (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
LunarCrush	7	80
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)	6	61
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)	5	79
Kaito Pro	5	56
StockGeist Crypto Sentiment API	2	59
Augmento	2	53
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)	1	60

All 4 published criteria

Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.

	Provider					ChainChoice Score
1	LunarCrush	8	5	7	8	80
2	Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)	5	9	5	9	79
3	The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)	4	1	6	5	61
4	Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)	3	10	1	1	60
5	StockGeist Crypto Sentiment API	2	8	2	3	59
6	Kaito Pro	1	4	5	3	56
7	Augmento	3	2	2	4	53

How this ranking works

How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which sentiment analytics were assessed and left out.

One point from changingLunarCrush leads Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) by 1 point

A one-point change on one criterion puts Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) first, so read both.

See the arithmetic

Move published predictive evidence — the heaviest criterion that changes it, weighted 30 — by a single point and Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) takes first place. Both are worth reading. The published rankings file

Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4

Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap out of 10Pts

Published predictive evidence7.2·87.7

Published price and free-tier substance6−554.0

Documented bot filtering6·75.6

Source and asset coverage4.8−185.1

Σ methodology points22.4/32

Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted

Why it ranks first

Why LunarCrush leads this category right now

Social feed aggregation across six platforms sold as Galaxy Score and AltRank composites plus an API and MCP server. Strongest on published predictive evidence (8/10): LunarCrush publishes a free 2,898-row event-level file of earnings events with a methodology guide. Its four published anchors, including 28.4% of events with a pre-print social z-score above 1, are stated to reproduce from the file; the liquidity cut behind the page headlines "is not included in this public file". Weakest on published price and free-tier substance (5/10): The pricing page lists Light at "$90/month" or "$72/month billed annually", Medium at $300 or $240 and Heavy at $900 or $720, Enterprise custom. Shipped site copy still quotes "Individual ($24/month)", and the free plan text reads "No social analytics or API access." Published price: Fetched 2026-11-10 from https://lunarcrush.com/pricing, which publishes every paid plan with its billing period in the served HTML.

Best for

Published predictive evidence — 8/10

Main tradeoff

The one reproducible test in this pool is on 2,898 US equity earnings prints in 2026 H1, not on crypto, and the effect that actually reproduces from the public file is about 1.19x top-versus-bottom decile. Corrected during verification: the vendor's own companion file discloses that the louder figures on the Atlas web page - "~1.2–1.4×", "+1.79σ print-day average", "1,665 liquid prints", "29.7% of liquid prints build more than 1σ of attention before the number is public" - are computed on an internal panel using a dollar-volume liquidity cut "which is not included in this public file", and warns to "Expect directionally identical but numerically different results". So the headline a buyer sees is not the number he can check; the number he can check is smaller. The page also routes the tradeable version - hourly feed, point-in-time constituent membership, 5+ years of history - to a two-week institutional trial arranged with the CEO by email. A crypto buyer is extrapolating an equities result across an asset class, a frequency and a price tier none of which were tested in public.

Verify before signup

Fetched 10 November 2026 from https://lunarcrush.com/pricing, which publishes every paid plan with its billing period in the served HTML. The plan cards were renamed since 28 October 2026 and the prices are unchanged: Light "$90/month" or "$72/month billed annually"; Medium "$300/month" or "$240/month billed annually"; Heavy "$900/month" or "$720/month billed annually"; Enterprise "Custom Pricing". The page title still uses the old plan names ("LunarCrush Pricing - Individual $90/mo, Builder $300/mo, Scale $900/mo"), and so does the page's embedded offer data, which also lists day passes named Individual Daily, Builder Daily and Scale Daily at 5, 15 and 45 US dollars. New on the page: "Pay-as-you-go is $1 per 1,000 requests across the API, MCP, and CLI; subscriptions include the LunarCrush Discover app." The FAQ sentence on refunds quoted on 28 October 2026 is no longer on the page. No free plan card is rendered on the pricing page. Worked example (ChainChoice arithmetic, not a page figure): Light billed annually is 72 x 12 = 864 dollars a year, against 90 x 12 = 1,080 dollars billed monthly, a 20 percent annual discount.

Recommendation summary

What should decide this category

Has this vendor published any test of whether its signal predicts anything?

What fraction of ingested posts does the bot filter actually remove?

Can you read the price, and does the free tier survive contact with real use?

Quick picks

Strong options in this category

Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.

Best overall

LunarCrush

Social feed aggregation across six platforms sold as Galaxy Score and AltRank composites plus an API and MCP server.

Best for: Published predictive evidence — 8/10

Published predictive evidence · weight 30%8/10Published price and free-tier substance · weight 25%5/10Documented bot filtering · weight 25%7/10Source and asset coverage · weight 20%8/10

Quick pick

Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)

Social, on-chain and development metrics over seven enumerated text sources, sold as a dashboard plus API.

Social, on-chain and development metrics over seven enumerated text sources, sold as a dashboard plus API. Strongest on published price and free-tier substance (9/10): Santiment prices every individual plan on one page: Free at "$0", "Free forever", with a "30-day lag in Sanbase"; Sanbase Pro at "$49 / mo" and Sanbase Max at "$249 / mo", each 10% less billed annually. Max "is the minimum plan required for accessing the real-time API data with no restrictions or time-lag." Weakest on published predictive evidence (5/10): Santiment names its sentiment models, a classifier trained on "a large Twitter dataset that contains over 1.6 million tweets, each labelled as either positive or negative" and the "ElKulako/cryptobert model from Hugging Face", but makes no predictive claim and publishes no backtest. Published price: Fetched 2026-11-10 from https://santiment.net/pricing (redirects to https://app.santiment.net/pricing).

Best for: Published price and free-tier substance — 9/10

Published predictive evidence · weight 30%5/10Published price and free-tier substance · weight 25%9/10Documented bot filtering · weight 25%5/10Source and asset coverage · weight 20%9/10

Quick pick

The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)

Institutional terminal and quant API whose sentiment product is derived entirely from Twitter, sold only through sales.

Institutional terminal and quant API whose sentiment product is derived entirely from Twitter, sold only through sales. Strongest on documented bot filtering (6/10): The Tie exposes two account-concentration metrics, "The percentage of tweets coming from unique accounts" and "The number of unique Twitter accounts mentioning the asset in the last 24 hours", so a buyer can gauge spam load. Its docs give no detection method, threshold or removal rate. Weakest on published price and free-tier substance (1/10): The Tie publishes no price on its product, API or documentation pages. The Terminal page offers "Schedule a demo", and the API docs say "If you don't have an API key, please contact your Account Manager". No free tier or trial is offered on the pages read. Published facts: No price is published on any The Tie page loaded on 2026-11-10 (home, /solutions/terminal, /solutions/api, /legal/disclosure, /insights, and the docs.thetie.io introduction and sentiment-metrics reference); https://www.thetie.io/pricing returns HTTP 404.

Best for: Documented bot filtering — 6/10

Published predictive evidence · weight 30%4/10Published price and free-tier substance · weight 25%1/10Documented bot filtering · weight 25%6/10Source and asset coverage · weight 20%5/10

Quick pick

Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)

A free single 0-100 Bitcoin sentiment number with published component weights and an unauthenticated API.

A free single 0-100 Bitcoin sentiment number with published component weights and an unauthenticated API. Strongest on published price and free-tier substance (10/10): The alternative.me Fear & Greed Index is free with no tier, key or registration. Its page states "Commercial use is allowed as long as the attribution is given right next to the display of the data." and the public API serves current and historical values. Weakest on documented bot filtering (1/10): The index's social component is described as: "we gather and count posts on various hashtags for each coin" and "check how fast and how many interactions they receive". The page mentions no filtering of bots or manufactured engagement, the most easily inflated construction. Published facts: Fetched 2026-11-10. No price appears anywhere on the page; the stated terms under "Fear and Greed Index API" are usage rules, not a price: "You may not use our data to impersonate us or to create a service that could be confused with our offering." "You must…

Best for: Published price and free-tier substance — 10/10

Published predictive evidence · weight 30%3/10Published price and free-tier substance · weight 25%10/10Documented bot filtering · weight 25%1/10Source and asset coverage · weight 20%1/10

Considered and not ranked

1 product we looked at and left out

A shortlist is only honest if it says who it turned away. It was assessed against the same published criteria as the ranked table and excluded for a stated reason — not overlooked.

We assessed 8 products here and rank 7 — 88% of what we looked at. That share is of the products we assessed, not of the category: how many exist is not something we can count, so we do not claim a number for it.

cookie.fun (Cookie DAO)· Re-read pending

What this ranking does not assess

Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.

These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.

How this ranking is built

Reviewed on published predictive evidence, published price and free-tier substance, documented bot filtering, and source and asset coverage.

Data checked Nov 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work

Reviewed 10 November 2026Next review by 25 December 2026Published 7 August 2026Methodology v2026.11.1

How this page is reviewed

Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Direct answer

What is the best sentiment analytics tool in 2026?

LunarCrush ranks #1 overall for sentiment analytics on ChainChoice. Social feed aggregation across six platforms sold as Galaxy Score and AltRank composites plus an API and MCP server. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.

How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores

Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
Scored by Published predictive evidence · 30% (LunarCrush 8/10, Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 5/10, The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) 4/10)
Scored by Documented bot filtering · 25% (LunarCrush 7/10, Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 5/10, The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) 6/10)

Not assessed by this ranking: Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.

Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Published price and free-tier substance (25%), Source and asset coverage (20%).

FAQs

3 questions readers ask before choosing sentiment analytics.

Frequently asked

Questions people ask before choosing sentiment

Does any sentiment vendor prove its signal predicts price?

One, partially, and not for crypto. This was tested by looking rather than assumed: The Tie's /research and /resources return HTTP 404 and its live insights index carries roughly a hundred items - funding briefs, acquisitions, event recaps, webinars - none reporting a correlation, hit rate or accuracy figure. Santiment makes no predictive claim at all. Kaito publishes a one-sentence definition of mindshare and no methodology page. alternative.me states two assumptions and validates neither. cookie.fun documents features only, and Augmento's current site contains no instance of "research", "correlation", "Spearman" or "study". That leaves LunarCrush's Earnings Social Atlas, which is real, checkable, and about US equity earnings prints. StockGeist is the near-miss: its evidence page promises "evidence that StockGeist has correctly forecast market fluctuations", and its AYTU case study describes social activity that "followed this announcement immediately" after a company press release - the signal trailing the news, offered as forecasting, with no sample, no counterfactual and no accuracy figure.

How much of the feed is bots?

No vendor here says. Five assert filtering - LunarCrush "removes automated posts, duplicate-network activity, and low-quality content", Kaito "extensively leverages LLM to exclude low-effort content including spams", The Tie offers "Bot and spam detection to ensure clean signal", Santiment applies a score threshold, and cookie.fun flags "signs of botted likes or views" - and not one states what fraction of ingested posts the filter removes, what it catches, or what it misses. Searching LunarCrush's entire shipped JavaScript bundle for a removal percentage, a removed count or a filtered-out figure returned none. Two vendors do ship a proxy you can compute yourself: LunarCrush exposes spam as a queryable time-series metric to "gauge manipulation risk", and The Tie exposes tweet_unique_sources_percent. A proxy you compute is not a disclosed removal rate, but it beats an assertion.

Is there a conflict of interest to watch for?

At one vendor, yes, and it is disclosed rather than hidden. The Tie scores sentiment on tokens while The Tie Capital LLC - per its own disclosure dated 28 May 2026 - "is a broker-dealer registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission" and a "member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority", providing "private capital raises, mergers and acquisitions advisory" to clients in the digital asset industry. The disclosure covers banking risks and does not address information barriers between the bank and the sentiment feed. That is not an accusation; it is a question a buyer should ask before treating the feed as neutral.

Free advisorNo signup needed

Still unsure? Get your best sentiment pick

Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.

No signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Best picks

Best sentiment analytics in 2026

Weighted on published predictive evidence (30), published price and free-tier substance (25), documented bot filtering (25), and source and asset coverage (20). Across eight vendors, exactly one publishes a predictive test a buyer can check - and it is about US equities, not crypto. LunarCrush's Earnings Social Atlas covers 2,898 earnings prints with an event-level CSV downloadable without registration; recomputing it returns a decile spread of 1.186x, against the vendor's own companion note saying "The decile spread is modest by design" and "If you find a 5x effect, you have a bug, not alpha." The web page headlines a 1.2 to 1.4x range using an internal liquidity cut not included in the public file. That gap - between the checkable number and the advertised one - exists at the most rigorous vendor in the category.

Best overall

LunarCrush

Social feed aggregation across six platforms sold as Galaxy Score and AltRank composites plus an API and MCP server.

Data checked Nov 2026

Best for: Published predictive evidence — 8/10

Browse this network

Keep exploring sentiment analytics tools

The same published ranking, read for your country, side by side, or one provider at a time.

Every ranked provider, its full verdict

Best sentiment analytics tools by country

How this category is defined

Sentiment Analytics Tools: overview, criteria and weights

Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier Founder

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research

Your setup

7 providers match your requirements

Why it leads

Tradeoff

Monthly price

Compare providers (0)