Provider at a glance
- Category
- Onchain Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- artemis.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 61 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Artemis
Chain and protocol metrics
Onchain Analytics
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 onchain analytics in the published ranking
61
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Artemis right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Query & data portability (lock-in)5/10 here; the category best is 9
- Attribution & methodology auditability5/10 here; Glassnode scores 6
- Chain & data coverage6/10 here; Nansen scores 7
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 analytics platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Artemis cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Transactions per year
- 1k
- Monthly price
- $0
Level with the median of 6 priced onchain analytics.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Artemis?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Artemis
Compare all 4- 4Messari3 points below · weaker on coverage depth (5 against 6)58$0.00
- 5Nansen6 points below · stronger on coverage depth (7 against 6)55$0.00
- 6Glassnode6 points below · stronger on attribution auditability (6 against 5)55$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Artemis fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Artemis 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 analytics platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Artemis ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.1 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
305+4.805.09#3/7Loading evidence…
255+4.005.09#4/7Loading evidence…
256+4.806.010#4/7Loading evidence…
207+4.486.08#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−9behind Token Terminal, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 59–63 and stays #3
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 Artemis’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.
Query & data portability (lock-in) 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Token Terminal+570#3 → #2
Query & data portability (lock-in) 5 → 3 on its ladder · Messari passes it−257#3 → #4
Attribution & methodology auditability 5 → 3 on its ladder · Messari passes it−258#3 → #4
Chain & data coverage 6 → 4 on its ladder · Messari passes it−258#3 → #4
Smallest climb: query & data portability (lock-in) 5 → 10 passes Token Terminal, #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Query & data portability (lock-in) — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Attribution & methodology auditability — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Chain & data coverage — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Usage is capped by count, not data volume — the free Intern tier allows "Limited queries, daily rate limits" (docs: 20 Analyst queries per month), and Sheets/Plugin calls are capped at 50k per month on Investor and 1M per month on the $500-per-user Plugin, with "Follow-ups in the same thread count as separate queries." Warehouse access ("Snowflake data share, API, and MCP access is available on Managing Director. Contact the team.") is sales-served, with a docs floor of $50k/year.
Competitive position
Where Artemis 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 713.6 of 30 · best 21.7
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Artemis leads
- Query & data portability (lock-in)#3 / 7
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty#3 / 7
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.
Messari#4 of 7 · score 58 · 3.0 points behind
Artemis leads on
- Chain & data coverage6 vs 5
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty7 vs 6
Messari leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Artemis is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Messari is the same.
Nansen#5 of 7 · score 55 · 6.0 points behind
Artemis leads on
- Query & data portability (lock-in)5 vs 3
- Attribution & methodology auditability5 vs 2
Nansen leads on
- Chain & data coverage7 vs 6
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty8 vs 7
Largest single reason Artemis is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Nansen is the same.
Glassnode#6 of 7 · score 55 · 6.0 points behind
Artemis leads on
- Query & data portability (lock-in)5 vs 4
- Chain & data coverage6 vs 3
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty7 vs 6
Glassnode leads on
- Attribution & methodology auditability6 vs 5
Largest single reason Artemis is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Glassnode is the same.
Against the leader
82 vs 61 · gap 21.0Why Dune ranks above Artemis
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 21.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisDuneGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.621.7−21.1, 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 criterionThisDunePoints
Query & data portability (lock-in) · w3059−3.84, worse
Attribution & methodology auditability · w2559−3.20, worse
Chain & data coverage · w25610−3.20, worse
Published pricing & free-tier honesty · w2078−0.64, worse
Net6182−21.0
Your scenario
What Artemis costs on your 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
Monthly price · published rate$0
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 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.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.006 of 7 rows priced · Artemis at the median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Token TerminalArtemis costs the same · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Token Terminal
1 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 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 #3 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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Query & data portability (lock-in)strength 5 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 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.Attribution & methodology auditabilitystrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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.Chain & data coveragestrength 6 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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.Published pricing & free-tier honestystrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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
- Exit failure (Artemis 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Query & data portability (lock-in) · 30%
- Information failure (Artemis 5/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Attribution & methodology auditability · 25%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Chain & data coverage (25%), Published pricing & free-tier honesty (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- about.artemis.ai/pricing (read 22 October 2026): The Analyst: Intern "$0" ("Limited queries, daily rate limits"; docs: "20 Analyst queries per month"); Investor "$100" /month ("5x more usage", "No daily rate limits", "50k Sheets/Plugin calls per month"; docs: "100 queries per month"); Managing Director "Custom" (docs: "Managing Director starts at $50k/year; final price depends on need."), the only Analyst tier with Snowflake data share, API and MCP access. The Plugin: "$500" /month per user, "1M Sheets calls per month", including API access.Artemis — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDArtemis — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 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
- Artemis's Terms of Service (www.artemis.ai/terms-of-service, "Last updated: September 7, 2026", read 22 October 2026) name no restricted or served countries and no sanctions clause; they "shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York".
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Artemis: 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
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 61, #3 of 7. 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 onchain_analytics:artemis:2026.10.18:d2814b98dbc9
Are you Artemis? 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.