Provider at a glance
- Category
- Layer-1 Blockchains
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- aptosfoundation.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Aptos
Move-based layer-1 chain
Layer-1 Blockchains
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 8 layer-1 blockchains in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Aptos right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Measured deterministic finality7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Documented Downtime4/10 here; the category best is 9
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient4/10 here; Sui scores 6
- Independent Client Implementations2/10 here; Solana scores 4
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 layer-1 blockchain shows where it lands for you.
What will Aptos cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Aptos?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Aptos
Compare all 4- 5Solana1 point above · stronger on client diversity (4 against 2)71
- 7Sui1 point below · stronger on decentralisation depth (6 against 4)69
- 8BNB Chain2 points below · stronger on client diversity (3 against 2)68
For your setup
Find out if Aptos fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Aptos 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 layer-1 blockchainNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Aptos ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
304+3.844.09#3/8Loading evidence…
257+5.606.57#1/8Loading evidence…
254+3.205.59#6/8Loading evidence…
202+1.282.08#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Solana, #5
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–72 and ranks #5–#7
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 Aptos’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.
Documented Downtime 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Solana+172#6 → #5
Measured deterministic finality 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Solana+171#6 → #5
Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Solana+171#6 → #5
Independent Client Implementations 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Solana+171#6 → #5
Documented Downtime 4 → 3 on its ladder · Sui passes it−168#6 → #7
Measured deterministic finality 7 → 6 on its ladder · Sui passes it−168#6 → #7
Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient 4 → 3 on its ladder · Sui passes it−168#6 → #7
Smallest climb: documented Downtime 4 → 5 passes Solana, #5.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Measured deterministic finality — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Documented Downtime — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Independent Client Implementations — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The gap between the first public explanation of the October 2023 halt (traffic surge) and the actual cause (an August code commit introducing non-determinism) is the single clearest example in this category of an ecosystem preferring a flattering explanation. A demand-driven outage suggests popularity; a code-driven one suggests process failure. Note also the 160,000 theoretical TPS against 12,933 measured — and $442.4M securing it.
- Aptos also shows exact cross-source agreement: Chainspect reports a Nakamoto coefficient of 13 and Nakaflow independently reports 13. Three of the eight chains agree across trackers, not two. The research states the Chainspect figure of 13 in its own Aptos decentralisation_depth evidence, so this is again an internal contradiction.
Competitive position
Where Aptos 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 810.4 of 30 · best 13.9
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Aptos leads
- Documented Downtime#3 / 8
- Measured deterministic finality#1 / 8
Where it trails
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient#6 / 8
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.
Solana#5 of 8 · score 71 · 1.0 point ahead
Aptos leads on
- Documented Downtime4 vs 3
- Measured deterministic finality7 vs 6
Solana leads on
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient5 vs 4
- Independent Client Implementations4 vs 2
Largest single reason Solana is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Solana has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sui#7 of 8 · score 69 · 1.0 point behind
Aptos leads on
- Documented Downtime4 vs 2
Sui leads on
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient6 vs 4
Largest single reason Aptos is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Sui has no verified pricing for this scenario.
BNB Chain#8 of 8 · score 68 · 2.0 points behind
Aptos leads on
- Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient4 vs 2
BNB Chain leads on
- Independent Client Implementations3 vs 2
Largest single reason Aptos is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: BNB Chain has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 70 · gap 9.0Why Ethereum ranks above Aptos
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 9.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisEthereumGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.413.9−9.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisEthereumPoints
Documented Downtime · w3049−4.80, worse
Measured deterministic finality · w2574+2.40, better
Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient · w2542+1.60, better
Independent Client Implementations · w2028−3.84, worse
Net7079−9.0
Your scenario
Aptos 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 · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 September 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 medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 September 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #7 across one-point re-runs
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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Documented Downtimestrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 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.Measured deterministic finalitystrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 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.Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficientstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 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.Independent Client Implementationsstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 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
- Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Measured deterministic finality · 25% (Aptos 7/10)Scored by Validator Count and Nakamoto Coefficient · 25% (Aptos 4/10)Scored by Independent Client Implementations · 20% (Aptos 2/10)
- Liveness failure (Aptos 4/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Documented Downtime · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Average Transaction Fee: $0.0003759 · Total Stake: $442.4M · Block Time (1H): 39ms · Finality Time: 0sChainspect — independent chain metrics tracker ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDChainspect — independent chain metrics tracker ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- 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.
If something goes wrong with Aptos: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 70, #6 of 8. 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 layer1_chains:aptos_l1:2026.10.18:b2e24c65958f
Are you Aptos? 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.