Provider at a glance
- Category
- Tokenised Carbon Credits
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- carbonmark.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 72 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Carbonmark
Carbon credit marketplace and API
Tokenised Carbon Credits
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 8 tokenised carbon credits in the published ranking
72
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Carbonmark right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Vintage and methodology disclosure7/10; the category best is 8
- Price against comparable credits8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Registry serial traceability6/10 here; Regen Network scores 8
- Retirement finality at the registry6/10 here; Regen Network 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 carbon credit token shows where it lands for you.
What will Carbonmark cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Carbonmark?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Carbonmark
Compare all 4- 1Regen Network9 points above · stronger on retirement finality (9 against 6)81
- 2Toucan Protocol3 points above · stronger on retirement finality (8 against 6)75
- 4Thallo7 points below · stronger on retirement finality (7 against 6)65
For your setup
Find out if Carbonmark fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Carbonmark 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 carbon credit tokenNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Carbonmark 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 (21.2 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
326+6.144.08#2/8Loading evidence…
266+4.995.09#4/8Loading evidence…
227+4.937.08#4/8Loading evidence…
208+5.126.58#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Toucan Protocol, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–74 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 Carbonmark’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.
Registry serial traceability 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Toucan Protocol+276#3 → #2
Retirement finality at the registry 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Toucan Protocol+275#3 → #2
Vintage and methodology disclosure 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Toucan Protocol+275#3 → #2
Registry serial traceability 6 → 2 on its ladder · Thallo passes it−464#3 → #4
Retirement finality at the registry 6 → 1 on its ladder · Thallo passes it−564#3 → #4
Vintage and methodology disclosure 7 → 1 on its ladder · Thallo passes it−664#3 → #4
Smallest climb: registry serial traceability 6 → 8 passes Toucan Protocol, #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Vintage and methodology disclosure — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Price against comparable credits — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Registry serial traceability — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Retirement finality at the registry — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Two things a buyer would regret not knowing. First, 759 of the 863 priced entries returned by api.carbonmark.com/prices on 2026-09-28 report supply 0 (579 of 712 on 2026-08-08), so more than four fifths of the visible book is not purchasable and the headline price distribution is not the transactable one. Second, Carbonmark and Klima Protocol should be treated as one counterparty: Carbonmark's own API readme describes its entire Base offering as 'Klima Protocol carbon class liquidity, pricing, retirements, and public retirement records', and on 2026-09-28, 27 of the 863 price entries are typed 'klimaprotocol' (25 of 712 in August). On Base the two are the same counterparty. Pricing is also invoice-based rather than fully self-serve: the retirement docs state that 'the cost will be included in your monthly invoice', and no headline take rate is published, so the spread between the listed per-tonne price and what the project developer receives cannot be reconstructed.
Competitive position
Where Carbonmark 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#3 / 815.9 of 30 · best 19.3
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 Carbonmark leads
- Registry serial traceability#2 / 8
- Price against comparable credits#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.
Toucan Protocol#2 of 8 · score 75 · 3.0 points ahead
Carbonmark leads on
- Registry serial traceability6 vs 5
Toucan Protocol leads on
- Retirement finality at the registry8 vs 6
- Vintage and methodology disclosure8 vs 7
Largest single reason Toucan Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Toucan Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Thallo#4 of 8 · score 65 · 7.0 points behind
Carbonmark leads on
- Registry serial traceability6 vs 5
- Vintage and methodology disclosure7 vs 5
- Price against comparable credits8 vs 5
Thallo leads on
- Retirement finality at the registry7 vs 6
Largest single reason Carbonmark is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: Thallo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Regen Network#1 of 8 · score 81 · 9.0 points ahead
Carbonmark leads onNo scored criterion
Regen Network leads on
- Registry serial traceability8 vs 6
- Retirement finality at the registry9 vs 6
Largest single reason Regen Network is ahead: published criteria (+8.8 display points).Scenario cost: Regen Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 72 · gap 9.0Why Regen Network ranks above Carbonmark
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 9.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRegen NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.919.3−8.8, 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 criterionThisRegen NetworkPoints
Registry serial traceability · w3268−2.05, worse
Retirement finality at the registry · w2669−2.50, worse
Net7281−9.0
Your scenario
Carbonmark 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 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 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 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 #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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Registry serial traceabilitystrength 6 · weight 32Report 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.Retirement finality at the registrystrength 6 · 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.Vintage and methodology disclosurestrength 7 · weight 22Report 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.Price against comparable creditsstrength 8 · 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
- Insolvency failure (Carbonmark 6/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Registry serial traceability · 32%
- Execution failure (Carbonmark 6/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Retirement finality at the registry · 26%
- Information failure (Carbonmark 7/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Vintage and methodology disclosure · 22%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Custody 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: Price against comparable credits (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Storefront cards fetched 28 September 2026 carry "Price per tonne:" in one block and the figure in the next. Two cards are marked "Live pricing": Limenet (Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, Italy; app link CMARK-2) "From $929.20" with "Tonnes available:" "9.100", and Forestal Río Aquidabán (silvopastoral agroforestry, Paraguay; app link ICR-349) "From $6.95" with "69,026.282". Two are marked "Indicative pricing · live prices in the app" and show no tonnage: Black Earth Organic Waste Compost (Massachusetts, USA) "$19.50" and Urunday Afforestation Project (Corrientes, Argentina) "$11.05". On 8 August 2026 the Limenet card read 680.00 with 15 tonnes and the Forestal card 20.23 with 1,500 tonnes. The public API api.carbonmark.com/prices returned 863 priced entries the same day (712 in August), with a median purchasePrice of 2.8 USDC per tonne and 81.7 percent under 5; 759 report supply 0, and the 104 with supply above zero have a median of 1.134 and a maximum of 928.45799, totalling 1,753,867.28 tonnes.Carbonmark — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDCarbonmark — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon, Base
- 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 Carbonmark: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 72, #3 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
2026.10.6A 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 carbon_credits:carbonmark:2026.10.18:621a9fbb1d0f
Are you Carbonmark? 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.