ChainChoice verdict

ApeChain

Appchains / L3sEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#4 overall across 9 scored appchains / l3s. 15 points behind #1 Abstract. Scored 64 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.

Find my best

Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer

Why this rank

Why ApeChain ranks #4

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (11.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 1 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100

CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence

4+4.482.08#3/9Third party

5+4.003.05#1/9Third party

3+1.923.07#5/9Third party

2+1.282.08#5/9Third party

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin−5behind Zora Network, #3

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 62–66 and stays #4

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 ApeChain’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.

Security inherited from settlement layer 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Zora Network+371#4 → #2

Permissionless exit without the operator 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Zora Network+470#4 → #2

Operators running the chain today 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes Zora Network+469#4 → #2

Measured liquidity on arrival 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes Zora Network+469#4 → #2

Security inherited from settlement layer 4 → 1 on its ladder · Xai passes it−357#4 → #5

Permissionless exit without the operator 5 → 1 on its ladder · Xai passes it−458#4 → #5

Smallest climb: security inherited from settlement layer 4 → 7 passes Zora Network, #3.

Strengths

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

Permissionless exit without the operator — 5/10
Security inherited from settlement layer — 4/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

3 from the score data

Record watch-outs

Gas is APE, so the cost of using the chain and the price of the asset that constitutes 100% of its value secured are the same instrument. ApeChain's own contract page lists weth 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and wethGateway 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in BOTH its L2Contracts and L3Contracts tables, so there is no WETH gateway in the published token bridge.

Competitive position

Where ApeChain 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 / 914.0 of 20 · pool best

Published criteria#4 / 98.8 of 30 · best 14.5

Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · pool best

Where ApeChain leads

Security inherited from settlement layer#3 / 9
Permissionless exit without the operator#1 / 9

Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.

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.

Browse all 9

Zora Network#3 of 9 · score 69 · 5.0 points ahead

ApeChain leads on

Permissionless exit without the operator5 vs 4
Measured liquidity on arrival2 vs 1

Zora Network leads on

Security inherited from settlement layer7 vs 4
Operators running the chain today4 vs 3

Largest single reason Zora Network is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Zora Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

dYdX Chain#2 of 9 · score 69 · 5.0 points ahead

ApeChain leads on

Security inherited from settlement layer4 vs 2
Permissionless exit without the operator5 vs 3

dYdX Chain leads on

Operators running the chain today7 vs 3
Measured liquidity on arrival8 vs 2

Largest single reason dYdX Chain is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: dYdX Chain has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Xai#5 of 9 · score 58 · 6.0 points behind

ApeChain leads on

Security inherited from settlement layer4 vs 2
Measured liquidity on arrival2 vs 1

Xai leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason ApeChain is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Xai has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why Abstract ranks above ApeChain

79 vs 64 · gap 15.0

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 15.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisAbstractGap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight8.814.5−14.8

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisAbstractPoints

Security inherited from settlement layer · w3548−4.48

Operators running the chain today · w2034−0.64

Measured liquidity on arrival · w2026−2.56

Net6479−15.0

Compare with #1 Abstract View verdict

For your setup

Find out if ApeChain fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where ApeChain 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.

3–5 questions
No account required
Ranking-blind: no commercial input
Personalised in under 60 seconds

Find my best appchains / l3Nothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.

Your scenario

ApeChain is not priced for this scenario

Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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

Usage per month

Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 11 Aug 2026.

your cost/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 9 rows priced

Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter

Cost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

9 of 9 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 7 Aug 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

Public receiptsAvailable4 quoted with a source URL

Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness

Rank stabilityHoldsone point moves 2.2 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness52 days agonewest read 7 Aug 2026 · current

Primary-source share0%0 of 4 sourced cells

Conflicts0file and table agree

The newest evidence read on the platform is 5 Sept 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 7 Aug 2026.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

Security inherited from settlement layerstrength 4 · weight 35Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

Permissionless exit without the operatorstrength 5 · weight 25Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

Operators running the chain todaystrength 3 · weight 20Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

Measured liquidity on arrivalstrength 2 · weight 20Report an errorl2beat.comThird-party page7 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: "ApeChain utilizes $APE as its native gas token." (fetched 2026-08-07 from docs.apechain.com). Normalised: eth_gasPrice on rpc.apechain.com returned 101.6828 gwei on 2026-08-07, so a 21,000-gas transfer costs 21000 x 101.6828e-9 = 0.0021353 APE, and at the APE price of $0.132261 returned by coins.llama.fi the same day that is $0.00028. The Bridge's nativeToken on Arbitrum One resolves to 0x7f9FBf9bDd3F4105C478b996B648FE6e828a1e98, whose symbol() returns APE and decimals() returns 18, read at Arbitrum block 492,156,898ApeChain — official pricing page ↗ · 11 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDApeChain — official pricing page ↗ · 11 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: ApeChain, Arbitrum One, Ethereum
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Not published

No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.

6 methodology entries

7 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 64, #4 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
16 Sept 2026
2026.09.15
Dimension 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.
10 Sept 2026
2026.09.5
The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
- changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
- changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
- fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.
2 Sept 2026
2026.09.2
Twenty points that ordered nothing leave the total · platform-wide
- removed profileFit removed from the weighting. The published composite is now availability 20, objectiveFit 30, frictionFit 10, trustBonus 8 and quantitative 18 — 86 points, down from 106.
- fixed A stated priority for support raised profileFit, routing a visitor's answer into a dimension that could not move a result. It now raises frictionFit, where getting started and getting help are scored.
- changed Measured effect: 15 of 114 categories reordered and 3 changed leader (institutional_custody, payment_gateway, business_banking). Every one of the 36 swapped pairs sits within 0.02 points of 86 of its partner — products that were numerically tied before and after.
- changed The sensitivity analysis and the per-dimension breakdown no longer offer profileFit as a lever, since re-weighting a term that carries no weight cannot change an outcome. The breakdown still shows the number, labelled "shown, not scored".

Full methodology changelog

Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version: 2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot: Evidence read 7 Aug 2026
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(appchains_l3s, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: appchains_l3s:apechain:2026.09.15:aaa71be189e7

What changed in this methodology version?

2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources

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.
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.
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.

How appchains / l3s are weighted Changelog

Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.