Provider at a glance
- Category
- NFT Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- unleashnfts.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 75 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)
NFT data API
NFT Analytics
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 6 NFT analytics in the published ranking
75
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6/10, the category best
- What the printed number actually counts5/10; the category best is 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it1/10 here; NFTGo scores 5
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 NFT analytics tool shows where it lands for you.
What will bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)
Compare all 4- 1NFTGo3 points above · stronger on revision policy (5 against 1)78
- 3CoinGecko NFT9 points below · stronger on revision policy (2 against 1)66
- 4NFTScan14 points below · stronger on number definition (6 against 5)61
For your setup
Find out if bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 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 NFT analytics toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 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 (15.9 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
306+5.765.56#1/6Loading evidence…
265+4.165.06#2/6Loading evidence…
247+5.382.57#1/6Loading evidence…
201+0.641.55#4/6Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind NFTGo, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 73–76 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 bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)’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 the vendor removes before it prints the number 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes NFTGo+278#2 → #1
What the printed number actually counts 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes NFTGo+379#2 → #1
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes NFTGo+379#2 → #1
Whether the number is revised after you have used it 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes NFTGo+378#2 → #1
What the vendor removes before it prints the number 6 → 1 on its ladder · CoinGecko NFT passes it−565#2 → #3
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error 7 → 1 on its ladder · CoinGecko NFT passes it−666#2 → #3
Smallest climb: what the vendor removes before it prints the number 6 → 8 passes NFTGo, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10, the category best
- What the printed number actually counts — 5/10, category best 6/10
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it — 1/10 against a category best of 5/10
Record watch-outs
- The two headline claims in the pool record did not survive the docs. bitsCrunch does not publish a bounded, defined per-collection Wash Trade Index — washtrade_index is an undocumented sort key absent from every guide page, and the endpoint returning it never mentions wash trading. And the exclusion toggle that made 'is the mark cleaned' a buyer-controlled choice exists only in the v1 API labelled 'Deprecating'; it is absent from all 66 v2 endpoints, where wash metrics are instead a separate series the buyer must subtract themselves. What is genuinely best-in-pool here is narrower and still real: a named wash-pattern taxonomy that covers point-farming explicitly, a raw-and-adjusted pair retrievable at five matched levels of aggregation, and a per-token appraisal that ships a lower and upper bound with every mark. Two structural cautions a buyer should weigh: the vendor froze its API version at 1.0.0 across a rewrite that changed parameters, responses and ten chain enums, and it has switched the changelog module off in its own docs platform — so there is no mechanism by which you would learn that a number changed. Weighted score on the published criteria: 4.98 after the 2026-09-28 re-read, down from 5.58, because its revision policy now scores 1/10: a daily-freshness claim and an API version frozen at 1.0.0 are its only artefacts.
Competitive position
Where bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 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 / 614.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 612.0 of 30 · best 13.3
Friction#1 / 62.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 63.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 68.3 of 18 · constant here
Where bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) leads
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number#1 / 6
- What the printed number actually counts#2 / 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error#1 / 6
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.
NFTGo#1 of 6 · score 78 · 3.0 points ahead
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) leads on
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error7 vs 6
NFTGo leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 1
Largest single reason NFTGo is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: NFTGo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CoinGecko NFT#3 of 6 · score 66 · 9.0 points behind
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6 vs 5
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error7 vs 2
CoinGecko NFT leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it2 vs 1
Largest single reason bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) is ahead: published criteria (+8.3 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGecko NFT has no verified pricing for this scenario.
NFTScan#4 of 6 · score 61 · 14.0 points behind
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6 vs 1
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error7 vs 3
NFTScan leads on
- What the printed number actually counts6 vs 5
Largest single reason bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) is ahead: published criteria (+13.8 display points).Scenario cost: NFTScan has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
78 vs 75 · gap 3.0Why NFTGo ranks above bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)
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 3.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisNFTGoGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.013.3−3.4, 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 criterionThisNFTGoPoints
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · w2476+0.77, better
Whether the number is revised after you have used it · w2015−2.56, worse
Net7578−3.0
Your scenario
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) is not priced for this scenario
Marketplace fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 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 6 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
6 of 6 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What the vendor removes before it prints the numberstrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—28 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 printed number actually countsstrength 5 · weight 26Report an error—28 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.A mark for the token you hold, with a published errorstrength 7 · weight 24Report an error—28 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.Whether the number is revised after you have used itstrength 1 · weight 20Report an error—28 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by What the vendor removes before it prints the number · 30% (bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 6/10)Scored by What the printed number actually counts · 26% (bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 5/10)Scored by A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · 24% (bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 7/10)Scored by Whether the number is revised after you have used it · 20% (bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) 1/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No current price is readable on 28 September 2026. https://
unleashnfts .com /pricing returned HTTP 403 behind a Cloudflare challenge to curl and to a rendering fetch, as did https:// unleashnfts .com /, https:// unleashnfts .com /llms .txt, https:// bitscrunch .com / and https:// docs .bitscrunch .com /; docs.unleashnfts.com redirects to unleashnfts.com/docs, also 403. The Wayback index still holds only three captures of /pricing (28 September 2023, 30 November 2023, 13 August 2025), and the 13 August 2025 one is an empty client-rendered shell. The last readable plan table, on the 30 November 2023 capture at http:// web .archive .org /web /20231130004610 /https: / /unleashnfts .com /pricing (HTTP 200 today), prints "Developer Plan" "FREE" with "10,000 API Requests"; "Start up Plan" "FREE" with "200,000 API Requests"; "Professional" "$390" with "1,000,000 API Requests"; "Business" "$690" with "2,000,000 API Requests"; and "Enterprise" "CUSTOM", the three paid rows each adding "$0.0005 API Requests". Whether those tiers still exist cannot be read. What is published live is per-call cost in credits, in the vendor's OpenAPI at https:// dash .readme .com /api /v1 /api-registry /3b45z 1uimemgqvvz (HTTP 200 on 28 September 2026): 3 credits for /nft/floor_price, 5 for /nft/collection/washtrade, 1 for /nft/liquify/price_estimate and 10 for /nft/collection/scores, with no credit-to-currency rate on any page read. Cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDbitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Polygon, Binance Smart Chain, Solana, Bitcoin, Base, Avalanche, Linea, Optimism, Berachain, Unichain, Soneium, Root, Atleta Olympia, Monad (testnet), Somnia (testnet), Polyhedra (testnet), Unichain Sepolia (testnet)
- 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 bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs): 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 75, #2 of 6. 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 nft_analytics:bitscrunch:2026.10.18:fdb9fc986e75
Are you bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)? 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.