Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Bots
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- bitsgap.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 63 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Bitsgap
Trading terminal with bots
Trading Bots
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 trading bots in the published ranking
63
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
- $348 your total cost
Is Bitsgap right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Operational reliability7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Key custody posture4/10 here; Hummingbot scores 9
- True cost of operation6/10 here; Hummingbot scores 9
- Strategy capability6/10 here; Hummingbot scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto trading bot shows where it lands for you.
What will Bitsgap cost you?
$348 your total cost
- Months you run it
- 12 months
- Monthly plan
- $29
$108 above the median of 7 priced trading bots.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Bitsgap?
- Evidence: unknown4 of 4 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Bitsgap
Compare all 4- 2Pionex5 points above · weaker on true cost (4 against 6)68
- 3Cryptohopper4 points above · stronger on custody (5 against 4)67$348
- 5Hummingbot2 points below · stronger on custody (9 against 4)61$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Bitsgap fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Bitsgap 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 crypto trading botNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Bitsgap ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.9 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+3.845.010#7/9Loading evidence…
266+4.996.010#3/9Loading evidence…
246+4.616.010#4/9Loading evidence…
207+4.486.07#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Cryptohopper, #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 61–65 and stays #4
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Bitsgap’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.
Key custody posture 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Cryptohopper+369#4 → #2
True cost of operation 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Cryptohopper+368#4 → #2
Strategy capability 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Cryptohopper+368#4 → #3
Key custody posture 4 → 2 on its ladder · Hummingbot passes it−259#4 → #5
True cost of operation 6 → 4 on its ladder · Hummingbot passes it−260#4 → #5
Strategy capability 6 → 4 on its ladder · Hummingbot passes it−260#4 → #5
Smallest climb: key custody posture 4 → 7 passes Cryptohopper, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Operational reliability — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Key custody posture — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- True cost of operation — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Strategy capability — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Arbitrage opportunities have narrowed materially since 2021 — verify the spread economics work for your size
- Subscription stacks on top of exchange fees
- Some bot strategies require Pro tier — verify your tier supports your intended strategy
Competitive position
Where Bitsgap 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 / 920.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#5 / 913.4 of 30 · best 22.1
Friction#3 / 92.7 of 10 · best 6.7
Trust record#2 / 93.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#7 / 96.9 of 18 · best 8.3
Where Bitsgap leads
- True cost of operation#3 / 9
- Operational reliability#1 / 9
Where it trails
- Key custody posture#7 / 9
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.
Hummingbot#5 of 9 · score 61 · 2.0 points behind
Bitsgap leads on
- Operational reliability7 vs 5
Hummingbot leads on
- Key custody posture9 vs 4
- True cost of operation9 vs 6
- Strategy capability8 vs 6
Largest single reason Bitsgap is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: Hummingbot is −$348 against Bitsgap.
Cryptohopper#3 of 9 · score 67 · 4.0 points ahead
Bitsgap leads on
- Operational reliability7 vs 6
Cryptohopper leads on
- Key custody posture5 vs 4
Largest single reason Cryptohopper is ahead: measured data (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Cryptohopper is the same.
Pionex#2 of 9 · score 68 · 5.0 points ahead
Bitsgap leads on
- Key custody posture4 vs 3
- True cost of operation6 vs 4
- Strategy capability6 vs 4
Pionex leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Pionex is ahead: friction (+10.4 display points).Scenario cost: Pionex has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
84 vs 63 · gap 21.0Why Freqtrade ranks above Bitsgap
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. Bitsgap is ahead on friction (+5.2 in its favour).
DimensionThisFreqtradeGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.422.1−22.6, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.70.7+5.2, better
Trust record · 9% weight3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight6.98.3−3.6, worse
Published criterionThisFreqtradePoints
Key custody posture · w30410−5.76, worse
True cost of operation · w26610−3.33, worse
Strategy capability · w24610−3.07, worse
Operational reliability · w2076+0.64, better
Net6384−21.0
Your scenario
What Bitsgap costs on your scenario
The published monthly plan times the months you run it. Excludes the exchange fees on the bot's own orders and any profit share. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your total cost · default scenario — set your own
Months you run it · your input12 months
Monthly plan · published rate$29
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 September 2026.
your total costCost is stated as your total cost in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$348
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$2407 of 9 rows priced · Bitsgap +$108 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · FreqtradeBitsgap costs +$348 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Freqtrade
2 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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 evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsReading…category publishes no receipt file
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.RobustnessHoldsrank #4 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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
9 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Key custody posturestrength 4 · weight 30Report an error——
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.True cost of operationstrength 6 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Strategy capabilitystrength 6 · weight 24Report an error——
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.Operational reliabilitystrength 7 · weight 20Report an error——
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
- Liveness failure (Bitsgap 7/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Operational reliability · 20%
- Custody failure (Bitsgap 4/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Key custody posture · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Execution 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: True cost of operation (26%), Strategy capability (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Basic $29/mo, Advanced $69/mo, Pro $149/mo at monthly billing; annual billing shows $23 / $55 / $119 a month. A genuine free plan exists — 3 COMBO bots on Evedex, 20 active bots in demo, unlimited manual trading — alongside a 7-day PRO trial with no card. Re-read 2026-09-09: every tier had risen (Basic 24 → 29, Advanced 44 → 69, Pro 84 → 149) and the record described the free plan as only a trial.Bitsgap pricing ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBitsgap pricing ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not directly applicable — operates via exchange APIs
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global retail active traders
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Per-tier active-bot + open-position limits.
- Availability note
- Globally available; subject to connected exchange jurisdictions.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Bitsgap: 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.
11 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 63, #4 of 9. 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 trading_bots:bitsgap:2026.10.18:0cbf2bfa4041
Are you Bitsgap? 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.