Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallet Screening
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- blog.amlbot.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 52 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in November 2026.
AMLBot
Crypto AML screening
Wallet Screening
#9 Overall
Ranked #9 of 9 wallet screening in the published ranking
52
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is AMLBot right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Attribution defensibility2/10 here; Crystal Intelligence scores 6
- False-positive posture & appeal path2/10 here; Global Ledger scores 5
- Coverage for your stack4/10 here; Crystal Intelligence scores 7
- Access & price transparency6/10 here; the category best is 10
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best wallet screening tool shows where it lands for you.
What will AMLBot cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is AMLBot?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to AMLBot
Compare all 4- 6Crystal Intelligence10 points above · stronger on attribution (6 against 2)62
- 7Merkle Science4 points above · stronger on false positive (4 against 2)56
- 8Global Ledger3 points above · stronger on false positive (5 against 2)55$4,200
For your setup
Find out if AMLBot fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where AMLBot lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best wallet screening toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why AMLBot ranks #9
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.5 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
302+1.924.09#9/9Loading evidence…
262+1.664.06#7/9Loading evidence…
244+3.074.09#5/9Loading evidence…
206+3.843.010#3/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Global Ledger, #8
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 50–53 and stays #9
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of AMLBot’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Attribution defensibility 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Global Ledger+255#9 → #8
False-positive posture & appeal path 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Global Ledger+356#9 → #7
Coverage for your stack 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Global Ledger+356#9 → #7
Access & price transparency 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Global Ledger+355#9 → #8
Smallest climb: attribution defensibility 2 → 4 passes Global Ledger, #8.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Attribution defensibility — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- False-positive posture & appeal path — 2/10 against a category best of 6/10
- Coverage for your stack — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Access & price transparency — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying a consumer-grade risk score with institutional-grade consequences, no recourse, and no verifiable price.
- Genuinely self-serve at the bottom, gated at the top. Anyone can run one free check at signup or via the Telegram bot and buy small check bundles…
- August 2021: KrebsOnSecurity identified Antinalysis, a dark-web AML-evasion service, as an AMLBot clone reselling its scoring to criminals; AMLBot's own statement says its APIs were 'likely being used by Antinalysis' and that 'the Antinalysis account was permanently closed'.
Competitive position
Where AMLBot leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 920.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#8 / 97.9 of 30 · best 15.6
Friction#5 / 90.7 of 10 · best 2.7
Trust record#7 / 93.2 of 8 · best 5.6
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where AMLBot leads
- Access & price transparency#3 / 9
Where it trails
- Attribution defensibility#9 / 9
- False-positive posture & appeal path#7 / 9
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Global Ledger#8 of 9 · score 55 · 3.0 points ahead
AMLBot leads on
- Coverage for your stack4 vs 2
Global Ledger leads on
- Attribution defensibility3 vs 2
- False-positive posture & appeal path5 vs 2
Largest single reason Global Ledger is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: AMLBot has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Merkle Science#7 of 9 · score 56 · 4.0 points ahead
AMLBot leads on
- Access & price transparency6 vs 2
Merkle Science leads on
- Attribution defensibility3 vs 2
- False-positive posture & appeal path4 vs 2
Largest single reason Merkle Science is ahead: trust record (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Merkle Science has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Crystal Intelligence#6 of 9 · score 62 · 10.0 points ahead
AMLBot leads on
- Access & price transparency6 vs 2
Crystal Intelligence leads on
- Attribution defensibility6 vs 2
- False-positive posture & appeal path4 vs 2
- Coverage for your stack7 vs 4
Largest single reason Crystal Intelligence is ahead: published criteria (+10.1 display points).Scenario cost: Crystal Intelligence has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 52 · gap 31.0Why TRM Labs ranks above AMLBot
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 31.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTRM LabsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.915.6−20.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight0.72.7−5.2, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisTRM LabsPoints
Attribution defensibility · w3028−5.76, worse
False-positive posture & appeal path · w2626−3.33, worse
Coverage for your stack · w2449−3.84, worse
Access & price transparency · w2062+2.56, better
Net5283−31.0
Your scenario
AMLBot is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 3 November 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 9 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
7 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 3 November 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #9 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Attribution defensibilitystrength 2 · weight 30Report an error—3 November 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.False-positive posture & appeal pathstrength 2 · weight 26Report an error—3 November 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Coverage for your stackstrength 4 · weight 24Report an error—3 November 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Access & price transparencystrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—3 November 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.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 Attribution defensibility · 30% (AMLBot 2/10)Scored by False-positive posture & appeal path · 26% (AMLBot 2/10)
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: Coverage for your stack (24%), Access & price transparency (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- AMLBot's plans page (blog.amlbot.com/amlbot-plans-explained/, dated 22 October 2026, updated 2 November 2026), read 2026-11-03: two plans replace Lite, Pro and Pro+ ("Lite is now Personal.", "Pro+ is now Business.", and "Pro packages are no longer available for purchase in your account."). Personal is self-serve and pay-per-check: "You pay only for the checks you run: a standard check costs 1 credit, and credits come in bundles at one of the lowest AML screening rates on the market, from $1 down to $0.10 per credit depending on the bundle size." Business is quote-only: "Business Plan is Available on Request Contact our support team for a personalized offer.", with a free Business trial set up on request. No subscription price and no exact bundle price is published. Re-read 3 November 2026.AMLBot — verified source ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAMLBot — verified source ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Genuinely self-serve at the bottom, gated at the top. Anyone can run one free check at signup or via the Telegram bot and buy small check bundles with no contract — the most accessible paid screening in the category and a realistic option…
- Availability note
- Self-serve at the bottom, gated at the top. AMLBot's plans page (blog.amlbot.com/amlbot-plans-explained/), read 2026-11-03: for personal use, "just sign up on AMLBot (or log in if you’re already with us), choose a credit bundle, and run your first AML check."; for companies, "if you need a full compliance solution for your company, contact our Support Team and we'll set up Business profile for you." AMLBot's user agreement (Safelement Limited, Hong Kong) names no restricted country.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with AMLBot: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 3 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 52, #9 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt wallet_screening:amlbot:2026.10.18:8a4a1bd0c003
Are you AMLBot? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.