Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Screeners
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- birdeye.so
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 63 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Birdeye
Token tracker and data API
Token Screeners
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 token screeners in the published ranking
63
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Birdeye right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Yearly cost including trade fees4/10 here; the category best is 10
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo5/10 here; GMGN.AI scores 8
- Market coverage and data provenance6/10 here; the category best is 9
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 token screener shows where it lands for you.
What will Birdeye cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Birdeye?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Birdeye
Compare all 4- 4GMGN.AI4 points below · stronger on free tier survivability (8 against 5)59
- 5Axiom5 points below · stronger on free tier survivability (7 against 5)58
- 6Photon9 points below · stronger on free tier survivability (7 against 5)54
For your setup
Find out if Birdeye fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Birdeye 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 token screenerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Birdeye 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 (18.9 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
348+8.706.08#1/7Loading evidence…
284+3.584.010#3/7Loading evidence…
205+3.207.010#6/7Loading evidence…
186+3.466.09#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−11behind DEX Screener, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 61–65 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 Birdeye’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.
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 8 → 5 on its ladder · GMGN.AI passes it−357#3 → #5
Yearly cost including trade fees 4 → 1 on its ladder · GMGN.AI passes it−358#3 → #5
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo 5 → 1 on its ladder · GMGN.AI passes it−458#3 → #4
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Yearly cost including trade fees — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Market coverage and data provenance — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The 0.6% swap fee is documented on a page about a third-party function, not on either pricing page, so a buyer who reads both pricing pages and stops there will price Birdeye at $45/month and miss the number that actually dominates the bill. All three Birdeye pages that set these prices carry the footer "Updated about 1 year ago", verified on 2026-08-06.
Competitive position
Where Birdeye 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 / 714.2 of 30 · best 21.5
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 Birdeye leads
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones#1 / 7
- Yearly cost including trade fees#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo#6 / 7
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.
GMGN.AI#4 of 7 · score 59 · 4.0 points behind
Birdeye leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 6
- Yearly cost including trade fees4 vs 3
- Market coverage and data provenance6 vs 4
GMGN.AI leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo8 vs 5
Largest single reason Birdeye is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: GMGN.AI has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Axiom#5 of 7 · score 58 · 5.0 points behind
Birdeye leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 6
- Market coverage and data provenance6 vs 3
Axiom leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo7 vs 5
Largest single reason Birdeye is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Axiom has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Photon#6 of 7 · score 54 · 9.0 points behind
Birdeye leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 5
- Yearly cost including trade fees4 vs 3
- Market coverage and data provenance6 vs 3
Photon leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo7 vs 5
Largest single reason Birdeye is ahead: published criteria (+8.8 display points).Scenario cost: Photon has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 63 · gap 19.0Why GeckoTerminal ranks above Birdeye
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 19.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGeckoTerminalGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.221.5−19.0, 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 criterionThisGeckoTerminalPoints
Yearly cost including trade fees · w28410−5.38, worse
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo · w2059−2.56, worse
Market coverage and data provenance · w1869−1.73, worse
Net6382−19.0
Your scenario
Birdeye 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 6 August 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 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 6 August 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 6 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral onesstrength 8 · weight 34Report an error—6 August 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.Yearly cost including trade feesstrength 4 · weight 28Report an error—6 August 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.Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demostrength 5 · weight 20Report an error—6 August 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.Market coverage and data provenancestrength 6 · weight 18Report an error—6 August 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 How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones · 34% (Birdeye 8/10)Scored by Market coverage and data provenance · 18% (Birdeye 6/10)
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: Yearly cost including trade fees (28%), Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Data API, read 28 October 2026 from https://
data .birdeye .so /docs /guides /payment /pricing (HTTP 200), out of the pricing table: "Standard 0 30,000 Limited 1 rps* No additional CUs", "Lite $39 2,500,000 Most APIs 15 rps* $23", "Starter $99 8 Millions Most APIs 15 rps* $19.9", "Premium $199 20 Millions Most APIs + Websockets 50 rps* $9.9", "Business $499 60 Millions All APIs + Websockets 100 rps* $6.9", "Business (B-50) $2050 500 Millions All APIs + Websockets 150 rps $3.5", and "AutoScale is available starting with the B-10A plan, which includes 100 million Compute Units (CUs) for $699/month". Contradiction on the vendor's own site the same day: the FAQ at https:// data .birdeye .so /docs /resources /faqs lists Lite at 39 dollars with 1.5M CUs, Starter 99 with 5M, Premium 199 with 15M, a Premium Plus at 250 with 20M and Business at 699 dollars per month with 100M CUs, i.e. different allowances and a different Business price for the same tier names. Source moved: docs.birdeye.so now redirects to data.birdeye.so/docs and the August pages for the consumer plan (45 dollars per month, 120 per quarter, 360 per year), the token-info update service and the 0.6 percent swap processing fee all return HTTP 404 at both the old and redirected paths, while birdeye.so and birdeye.so/pricing return HTTP 403; those three figures could not be re-verified on 28 October 2026 and are not republished here.Birdeye — official page at data.birdeye.so ↗ · 6 August 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBirdeye — official page at data.birdeye.so ↗ · 6 August 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 Birdeye: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 6 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 63, #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 screeners:birdeye:2026.10.18:ab2f22d90845
Are you Birdeye? 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.