Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenisation Platforms
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- brickken.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Brickken
Tokenisation software from Spain
Tokenisation Platforms
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 tokenisation platforms in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Brickken right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What survives if the platform stops operating7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it5/10 here; InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.) scores 7
- Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers3/10 here; Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643) scores 9
- Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against5/10 here; InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.) 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 tokenisation platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Brickken cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Brickken?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Brickken
Compare all 4- 4InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.)5 points above · stronger on counterparty and licence (9 against 5)67
- 5Blocksquare3 points above · stronger on instrument and record authority (7 against 5)65
- 6Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)3 points above · stronger on control surface and who holds it (9 against 3)65
For your setup
Find out if Brickken fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Brickken 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 tokenisation platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Brickken ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.7 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
305+4.807.09#6/7Loading evidence…
253+2.407.09#6/7Loading evidence…
255+4.007.09#5/7Loading evidence…
207+4.487.07#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643), #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–64 and stays #7
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 Brickken’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 token conveys, and which record governs it 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)+265#7 → #6
Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)+265#7 → #6
Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)+265#7 → #6
What survives if the platform stops operating 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)+365#7 → #6
Smallest climb: what the token conveys, and which record governs it 5 → 7 passes Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643), #6.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What survives if the platform stops operating — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Whitelisting is real and on-chain, but the Supported Methods table at docs.brickken.com/api-reference/endpoint/create runs to 12 rows - newTokenization, mintToken, whitelist, burnToken, transferFrom, transferTo, approve, dividendDistribution, newSto, newInvest, claimTokens, closeOffer - none a freeze, pause or unilateral forced transfer, and prepare-burnToken states "The API does not expose a delegated burn." before "Two supported routes:", both starting from the investor. Confiscation reaches the price sheet, not the reference: the row "Investor operations (Confiscation / edits)" at "€50", "€25", "Free", "Free" on /plans and /webapp-saas-platform names no endpoint, function or role.
Competitive position
Where Brickken 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#7 / 711.8 of 30 · best 19.2
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 Brickken leads
- What survives if the platform stops operating#1 / 7
Where it trails
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it#6 / 7
- Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers#6 / 7
- Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against#5 / 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.
Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643)#6 of 7 · score 65 · 3.0 points ahead
Brickken leads on
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it5 vs 3
- What survives if the platform stops operating7 vs 5
Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643) leads on
- Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers9 vs 3
Largest single reason Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643) is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Tokeny (T-REX / ERC-3643) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Blocksquare#5 of 7 · score 65 · 3.0 points ahead
Brickken leads on
- Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against5 vs 3
Blocksquare leads on
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it7 vs 5
- Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers5 vs 3
Largest single reason Blocksquare is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Blocksquare has no verified pricing for this scenario.
InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.)#4 of 7 · score 67 · 5.0 points ahead
Brickken leads on
- What survives if the platform stops operating7 vs 3
InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.) leads on
- What the token conveys, and which record governs it7 vs 5
- Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against9 vs 5
Largest single reason InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.) is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: InvestaX (IC SG Pte. Ltd.) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 62 · gap 19.0Why Taurus (Taurus-CAPITAL / Taurus-TOKENIZE) ranks above Brickken
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.
DimensionThisTaurus (Taurus-CAPITAL / Taurus-TOKENIZE)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.819.2−19.2, 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 criterionThisTaurus (Taurus-CAPITAL / Taurus-TOKENIZE)Points
What the token conveys, and which record governs it · w3057−1.92, worse
Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers · w2539−4.80, worse
Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against · w2559−3.20, worse
Net6281−19.0
Your scenario
Brickken is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. 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 balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 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 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 30 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 #7 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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What the token conveys, and which record governs itstrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the leversstrength 3 · weight 25Report an error—30 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.Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs againststrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—30 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 survives if the platform stops operatingstrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—30 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
- Control failure (Brickken 3/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Transfer control and eligibility, and who holds the levers · 25%
- Insolvency failure (Brickken 5/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by What the token conveys, and which record governs it · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Brickken 5/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Whose licence, and which entity the claim runs against · 25%
- Exit failure (Brickken 7/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What survives if the platform stops operating · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- brickken.com/plans, fetched 30 September 2026, three tabs. Issuer Studio: Core "€299 /month", "€3,000 /year"; Advanced "€499 /month", "€5,000 /year"; Professional "€899 /month", "€9,000 /year"; Enterprise "For regulated, large-scale, or custom implementations" "€1,999 /month", "€22,000 /year". Whitelabel: Standard "€2,500 /month", "€22,500 /year"; Premium "€5,000 /month", "€45,000 /year"; Custom "Get a quote". API: Silver and Gold both "€2,000 /month", "€18,000 /year", "One time setup fee" "€2,000" (Silver) and "€7,000" (Gold). Extra KYCs from "€3.50/each".Brickken — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBrickken — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- BAND 3-4. Clears 3-4 on eligibility, and reaches one of the five band-5-6 items.
- Supported chains
- Not published
- 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 Brickken: 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
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 62, #7 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 tokenisation_platforms:brickken:2026.10.18:5d3ae72835a2
Are you Brickken? 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.