Skip to main content
Leading options · 6 ranked from 18 screened

NFT Analytics

NFT Analytics evaluated across what the vendor removes before it prints the number, what the printed number actually counts, a mark for the token you hold, with a published error, and whether the number is revised after you have used it.

NFTGo
#1 of 6 · published ranking
NFTGo
79ChainChoice Score
Why it leads
1 point ahead of bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs): +1.6 pts number definition, +1.2 pts revision policy
Cost
Not priced · No comparable price is published
No provider can pay for a position in this table. The code that computes this order cannot read which links earn us a commission, and every build proves it. Every score below rebuilds from the published criteria.Ranking 2026.08 · 4 criteria · 6 products · same inputs, same order
Personal comparison

NFT Analytics ranked comparison

No comparable price is published; ranking still uses verified product evidence.

RankProviderBest fitScore
1
NFTGoNFTGoAn NFT data API in two published versio...Top ranked
What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10Trade-off: Corrections to the pool note, and one to the draft under test. FIRST, the wash-filter...
79score
Check availability for your countryVisit NFTGo · docs.nftgo.io

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

2
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)A credit-metered REST API (66 documente...
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error — 7/10Trade-off: The two headline claims in the pool record did not survive the docs. bitsCrunch does...
78score
Check availability for your countryVisit bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) · unleashnfts.com

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

3
CoinGecko NFTCoinGecko NFTA free collection-level NFT feed — floo...
What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 5/10Trade-off: Not established in this review: 1) ACCESS ROUTE, DISCLOSED SO A VERIFIER CAN REPRODUC...
66score
Check availability for your countryVisit CoinGecko NFT · coingecko.com

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

4
CryptoSlamCryptoSlamA free NFT sales-volume aggregator: it...
What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10Trade-off: Both API hosts CryptoSlam publishes are unreachable, and the one that works is undocu...
62score
Check availability for your countryVisit CryptoSlam · cryptoslam.io

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

5
NFTScanNFTScanA multi-chain NFT indexer and explorer...
What the printed number actually counts — 6/10Trade-off: NFTScan's docs SPA (docs.nftscan.com/guides/...) renders its prose client-side from r...
60score
Check availability for your countryVisit NFTScan · nftscan.com

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

6
NFT Price FloorNFT Price FloorA free, ad-supported web ranking of 1,7...
Whether the number is revised after you have used it — 5/10Trade-off: Two distribution channels publish different commercial terms and I could not reconcil...
56score
Check availability for your countryVisit NFT Price Floor · nftpricefloor.com

Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure

Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.

Ranking blindCommercial terms excludedDated primary sources

Ranked on 4 published criteria weighted 30/26/24/20, which set goal alignment — 30 of the 86 points. The rest: regional access 20, evidence depth 18, ease of use 10, institutional trust 8. Profile match is shown in breakdowns but carries no weight.

Audit
Infrastructure
Methodology
2026.09.15
published 2026-09-16
Providers tracked
980+
across 119 categories
Last verified
2026-08-14
newest dated pricing or sentiment read
Named on the roster
2 people
managing directors · 6 automated processes
Decision guide

What matters most before choosing in this category

Weighted on what the vendor removes before it prints the number, what the printed number actually counts, a mark for the token you hold, with a published error, and whether the number is revised after you have used it, in that order. THE FILTER EVERY VENDOR ADVERTISES IS SWITCHED OFF EXACTLY WHERE THE NUMBER LEAVES THE BUILDING. Of the six vendors ranked here, exactly one removes inorganic trades from the printed figure by default (CryptoSlam's aria-label tooltip, served on https://www.cryptoslam.io/, /nfts, /collections and /blockchains: "Wash sales are NOT included in Sales (USD) aggregation."). NFTGo's filter is default-ON in the web product for an enumerated 55-entry metric table (https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1: "the wash trade filter has been automatically turned on for the following key metrics") and default-OFF in the API a buyer actually integrates — the published OpenAPI parameter block reads {"name":"exclude_wash_trading","schema":{"type":"boolean","default":false}}, and the vendor's own tutorial "How to filter out wash trades?" ships its copy-paste sample as "const excludeWashTrading= false;".

What matters most before choosing in this category

Weighted on what the vendor removes before it prints the number, what the printed number actually counts, a mark for the token you hold, with a published error, and whether the number is revised after you have used it, in that order. THE FILTER EVERY VENDOR ADVERTISES IS SWITCHED OFF EXACTLY WHERE THE NUMBER LEAVES THE BUILDING. Of the six vendors ranked here, exactly one removes inorganic trades from the printed figure by default (CryptoSlam's aria-label tooltip, served on https://www.cryptoslam.io/, /nfts, /collections and /blockchains: "Wash sales are NOT included in Sales (USD) aggregation."). NFTGo's filter is default-ON in the web product for an enumerated 55-entry metric table (https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1: "the wash trade filter has been automatically turned on for the following key metrics") and default-OFF in the API a buyer actually integrates — the published OpenAPI parameter block reads {"name":"exclude_wash_trading","schema":{"type":"boolean","default":false}}, and the vendor's own tutorial "How to filter out wash trades?" ships its copy-paste sample as "const excludeWashTrading= false;".

Who is going to challenge this number — an auditor, a lender’s risk desk, or a tax authority?
Are you marking a whole collection, or one specific token that is not the cheapest in it?
If the vendor revises its filter next quarter, can you still retrieve the figure you actually used?
Leads on disclosure

Expert review and scoring weights

NFTGo
NFTGoData checked Aug 2026
An NFT data API in two published versions — a stable V1.1 on Ethereum only, and a newer V2.2 "Multi Chain API" covering eight mainnets — plus GoPricing, a per-token appraisal that returns an estimated price for a specific tokenId decomposed into a collection floor base, an intercept and machine-learned per-trait premiums, and returns the trait weights and intercept themselves so the buyer can re-derive the number. GoPricing is documented only under V1.1 and is Ethereum-only. Wash-trade filtering is default-on in the web product for an enumerated table of metrics but default-OFF in the V1.1 API (exclude_wash_trading defaults to false) and has no exclude parameter at all on the V2.2 transaction-history endpoint, which instead tags each last sale with an is_wash_trade boolean. No accuracy figure, model version or as-of query is published anywhere.

An NFT data API in two published versions — a stable V1.1 on Ethereum only, and a newer V2.2 "Multi Chain API" covering eight mainnets — plus GoPricing, a per-token appraisal that returns an estimated price for a specific tokenId decomposed into a collection floor base, an intercept and machine-learned per-trait premiums, and returns the trait weights and intercept themselves so the buyer can re-derive the number. GoPricing is documented only under V1.1 and is Ethereum-only. Wash-trade filtering is default-on in the web product for an enumerated table of metrics but default-OFF in the V1.1 API (exclude_wash_trading defaults to false) and has no exclude parameter at all on the V2.2 transaction-history endpoint, which instead tags each last sale with an is_wash_trade boolean. No accuracy figure, model version or as-of query is published anywhere. Strongest on what the vendor removes before it prints the number (6/10): MORE DISCLOSURE THAN THE POOL NOTE ALLOWS, BUT THE RULE IS NOT RE-DERIVABLE AND THE API DEFAULT IS OFF. A dedicated page exists at https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1. Under 'Wash Trade Auto Filter' it states verbatim: "To allow for a better and more seamless user experience where users get to see the… Weakest on whether the number is revised after you have used it (5/10): ONE OF THE FOUR ARTEFACTS SHIPS; THE OTHER THREE DO NOT. (1) COMPUTED-AT TIMESTAMP — PRESENT, AND MANDATORY. The PricingItem schema published at https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/get_pricing_pricing_v1_pricing_get reads "PricingItem":{"title":"PricingItem","required":["contract_address","token_id","processed_at"] and… Published price: No price is published on any page I could load.

Best forWhat the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10
Main tradeoffCorrections 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.
Verify before signupNo 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.
Methodology

How this category is reviewed

Reviewed on what the vendor strips out before it prints the figure, what that figure actually counts, whether it prices the specific token you hold and admits its error, and whether it restates history after you have used it. Weights are the engine’s: 30 / 26 / 24 / 20.

The order on this page is the published ranking for this category. Every criterion, weight and source behind it is on the methodology page.
Frequently asked

Questions people ask before choosing nft data

Why can two vendors quote the same collection and disagree?
Because a floor price is not observed, it is constructed, and each vendor constructs it differently. NFT Price Floor advertises that it aggregates “all marketplaces”, but across all 1,799 records served by its own backend, 93.2% of priced collections are marked off a single venue. Four of the six vendors here also print the words “market cap” and compute incompatible figures from them — floor price times total supply at one, the average of the last 50 trades times item count at another — and none states which formula it used at the point it hands you the number.
Does the wash-trading filter apply to the number I actually integrate?
Usually not. Of the six vendors ranked here, exactly one removes inorganic trades from the printed aggregate by default. NFTGo turns its filter on for the website and ships the API parameter exclude_wash_trading with a default of false, so the figure on the page and the figure in your NAV pack are different numbers for the same collection — and the unfiltered one is the one that reaches your report. Ask which surface the filter is on for, not whether the vendor has one.
Is a collection floor good enough to mark the token I hold?
Only if your token is the cheapest one in the set, because that is what a floor is. Four of the six vendors publish no per-token output at all, and two say so outright — CoinGecko: “At the moment, our API only supports the market data for the entire NFT collection.” Of the two that do price a specific token, only bitsCrunch ships an admitted uncertainty alongside it, returning lower and upper bounds with every estimate. NFTGo publishes the construction of its model but no accuracy figure, while its marketing carries an “over 90%” its own documentation never defines.
Can I retrieve what a vendor published last quarter?
No vendor in this pool offers an as-of query that returns the figure as it stood when you used it. NFTScan states the consequence plainly: “NFTScan doesn’t store historical snapshots of the floor price of a collection, while it only updates the current floor price of the collection.” That is the difference between a historical series recomputed today and a record of what you were told — and it is why a filing defended two years later can stop being reproducible at exactly the moment it is examined.
REVIEWEDAugust 14, 2026METHOD4 criteriaCATEGORYnft_analytics
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
ChainChoice
Compare onchain. A brighter future.
© 2026 ChainChoice. All rights reserved.
System statusFeeds last refreshed 9 days ago
Built from commit ba0993b · rankings.json sha256 e1eb24980abb
ChainChoice · The decision layer for crypto · Not financial adviceEducational analysis, not investment advice. Affiliate links may contribute to operations but never alter rankings.

ChainChoice provides informational content only. Nothing on this site constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Always do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.