Provider at a glance
- Category
- P2P Exchanges
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- bisq.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Bisq
Open-source P2P exchange network
P2P Exchanges
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 P2P exchanges in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Bisq right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What you actually pay over the market price9/10, the category best
- What identity gate stands between you and a trade10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who can move the coins while the trade is open6/10 here; Hodl Hodl scores 9
- What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong4/10 here; Hodl Hodl scores 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 P2P exchange shows where it lands for you.
What will Bisq cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- One-time
- Amount
- $1k
How safe is Bisq?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Bisq
Compare all 4- 1Hodl Hodl12 points above · stronger on dispute standard (9 against 4)82
- 3Peach Bitcoin7 points below · stronger on dispute standard (7 against 4)63
- 4RoboSats8 points below · weaker on all in cost over spot (6 against 9)62
For your setup
Find out if Bisq fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Bisq 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 P2P exchangeNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Bisq ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
359+10.084.09#1/8Loading evidence…
306+5.766.09#4/8Loading evidence…
204+2.564.59#5/8Loading evidence…
1510+4.807.010#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−12behind Hodl Hodl, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–72 and stays #2
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 Bisq’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.
What you actually pay over the market price 9 → 5 on its ladder · Peach Bitcoin passes it−461#2 → #4
Who can move the coins while the trade is open 6 → 2 on its ladder · Peach Bitcoin passes it−463#2 → #3
What identity gate stands between you and a trade 10 → 2 on its ladder · Peach Bitcoin passes it−863#2 → #3
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What you actually pay over the market price — 9/10, the category best
- What identity gate stands between you and a trade — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Who can move the coins while the trade is open — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Bisq is two products and the safe one is not the one on the front page. bisq.wiki/Bisq_Easy never uses the word "escrow"; what it says is "Bisq Easy trades do not require any security deposits from either the buyer or seller", that Bisq Easy is "suited only to rather small amounts of bitcoin", and that "The minimum trade amount on Bisq easy is the equivalent of 6 USD and the maximum amount is the equivalent of 600 USD." It also warns that "As no security deposits are required buyers and sellers using fiat will be revealing their bank account details to users that might end up backing out of the trade", and that "Buyers on Bisq Easy do not need to have a reputation as they will always send the payment first." The multisig protocol that does hold a deposit is Bisq 1 — the one that lost 11.59104 BTC on 1 May 2026, on altcoin trades. Reimbursement was ad hoc, not insured: "Affected victims reimbursed June 5, 2026" via an anonymous group of "Refund Angels" advancing BTC against future DAO fee distributions, and as of the 16 June 2026 update "The total amount contributed by Refund Angels to date is 10.98538295 BTC" against a total loss of 11.59104 BTC, with "one affected trader has not yet submitted a reimbursement request." That outcome is not a guarantee that would repeat.
Competitive position
Where Bisq 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#2 / 817.4 of 30 · best 22.0
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 Bisq leads
- What you actually pay over the market price#1 / 8
- What identity gate stands between you and a trade#1 / 8
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.
Peach Bitcoin#3 of 8 · score 63 · 7.0 points behind
Bisq leads on
- What you actually pay over the market price9 vs 4
- What identity gate stands between you and a trade10 vs 8
Peach Bitcoin leads on
- Who can move the coins while the trade is open7 vs 6
- What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong7 vs 4
Largest single reason Bisq is ahead: published criteria (+7.3 display points).Scenario cost: Peach Bitcoin has no verified pricing for this scenario.
RoboSats#4 of 8 · score 62 · 8.0 points behind
Bisq leads on
- What you actually pay over the market price9 vs 6
- What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong4 vs 3
RoboSats leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Bisq is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: RoboSats has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Hodl Hodl#1 of 8 · score 82 · 12.0 points ahead
Bisq leads onNo scored criterion
Hodl Hodl leads on
- Who can move the coins while the trade is open9 vs 6
- What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong9 vs 4
Largest single reason Hodl Hodl is ahead: published criteria (+12.0 display points).Scenario cost: Hodl Hodl has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 70 · gap 12.0Why Hodl Hodl ranks above Bisq
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 12.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisHodl HodlGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.422.0−12.0, 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 criterionThisHodl HodlPoints
Who can move the coins while the trade is open · w3069−2.88, worse
What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong · w2049−3.20, worse
Net7082−12.0
Your scenario
Bisq is not priced for this scenario
Taker fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
cost on your amount · default scenario — set your own
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputOne-time
Amount · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 24 September 2026.
cost on your amountCost is stated as cost on your amount 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 24 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 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 24 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What you actually pay over the market pricestrength 9 · weight 35Report an error—24 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.Who can move the coins while the trade is openstrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—24 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.What the platform promises when the trade goes wrongstrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—24 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.What identity gate stands between you and a tradestrength 10 · weight 15Report an error—24 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
- Custody failure (Bisq 6/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Who can move the coins while the trade is open · 30%
- Execution failure (Bisq 4/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by What the platform promises when the trade goes wrong · 20%
- Information failure (Bisq 10/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by What identity gate stands between you and a trade · 15%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, 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: What you actually pay over the market price (35%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Published fee, bisq.wiki/Trading_fees fetched 24 September 2026 (HTTP 200): "Combined BTC trading fee rate is 1.3% (0.15% by maker and 1.15% by taker)"; "Combined BSQ trading fee rate is targeted at 0.65% (0.075% by maker and 0.575% by taker)"; the Current rates table reads "Trading Fees per 1 BTC BTC BSQ Maker 0.0015 40.62 Taker 0.0115 311.45"; "Absolute minimum fee to avoid dust is 0.000075 BTC". Bisq Easy is separately described as "a trade protocol for Bisq 2, designed to facilitate the acquisition of bitcoin with zero trade fees and without the requirement of a security deposit", and "There are no trade fees for buyers or sellers for trading on Bisq Easy" (bisq.wiki/Bisq_Easy, fetched 24 September 2026, HTTP 200). BUT the same wiki page prices the zero-fee protocol: "It is expected that they will sell bitcoin at a premium of about 10-15%. The premium reflects the additional costs and compensates sellers for the on-boarding service they provide." ANCHOR MEASUREMENT, same session, from the Bisq 1 market API (GET https://
markets .bisq .network /api /offers ?market =btc _eur, HTTP 200): the EUR ask side carried 128 offers (2026-08-06: two). The cheapest SEPA ask that fills the EUR 200-1,000 anchor was {"price":"74289.63780000","min_amount":"0.00500000","amount":"0.01000000","payment_method":"SEPA"} — EUR 371 to 743 at the offered price — and nine further SEPA/SEPA_INSTANT asks sat at 74,304.50-74,311.93. Two cheaper asks could not fill it: {"price":"72825.69270000","min_amount":"0.04000000","amount":"0.04000000","payment_method":"SEPA"} is a single EUR 2,913 lot, and a 73,568.81 ask is 0.001 BTC (EUR 73.57). ARITHMETIC against the Kraken XBTEUR mid of 74,309.55 fetched in the same session: 74289.6378 / 74309.55 = 0.99973, i.e. -0.03%, and adding the 1.15% BTC taker fee gives about +1.12% all-in (2026-08-06: +9.92% / +11.07% on a two-offer book). This is a Bisq 1 measurement; the Bisq Easy book has no public endpoint and is priced only by the wiki's 10-15% expectation.Bisq — official pricing page ↗ · 24 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBisq — official pricing page ↗ · 24 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 Bisq: 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
- 24 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 70, #2 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
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt p2p_exchanges:bisq:2026.10.18:ea9865b62260
Are you Bisq? 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.