Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallet Screening
- Official website
- go.chainalysis.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 82 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in November 2026.
Chainalysis
Blockchain analytics and screening
Wallet Screening
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 9 wallet screening in the published ranking
82
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Chainalysis right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Attribution defensibility9/10, the category best
- False-positive posture & appeal path6/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Coverage for your stack6/10 here; TRM Labs scores 9
- Access & price transparency3/10 here; MistTrack (SlowMist) scores 10
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 wallet screening tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Chainalysis cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Chainalysis?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Chainalysis
Compare all 4- 1TRM Labs1 point above · stronger on coverage (9 against 6)83
- 3Elliptic4 points below · stronger on coverage (8 against 6)78
- 4MistTrack (SlowMist)18 points below · stronger on access cost (10 against 3)64$20
For your setup
Find out if Chainalysis fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Chainalysis 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 wallet screening toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Chainalysis 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 (20.2 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
309+8.644.09#1/9Loading evidence…
266+4.994.06#1/9Loading evidence…
246+4.614.09#4/9Loading evidence…
203+1.923.010#5/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind TRM Labs, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 80–83 and ranks #1–#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 Chainalysis’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.
Attribution defensibility 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes TRM Labs+183#2 → #1
False-positive posture & appeal path 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes TRM Labs+183#2 → #1
Coverage for your stack 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes TRM Labs+183#2 → #1
Access & price transparency 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes TRM Labs+283#2 → #1
Attribution defensibility 9 → 6 on its ladder · Elliptic passes it−376#2 → #3
False-positive posture & appeal path 6 → 3 on its ladder · Elliptic passes it−377#2 → #3
Coverage for your stack 6 → 3 on its ladder · Elliptic passes it−377#2 → #3
Smallest climb: attribution defensibility 9 → 10 passes TRM Labs, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Attribution defensibility — 9/10, the category best
- False-positive posture & appeal path — 6/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Coverage for your stack — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Access & price transparency — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying the industry's most defensible attribution narrative, and the vendor has been sued for $650M over exactly that.
- Enterprise sales only for anything with a risk score: demo request, contract, no self-serve signup, no published free trial.
- Material and omitted from most vendor comparisons: Exceptional Media Ltd v Chainalysis, Inc., Kim Grauer, Eric Jardine, Erin Leosz and Henry…
Competitive position
Where Chainalysis 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 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 915.1 of 30 · best 15.6
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#1 / 95.6 of 8 · pool best
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Chainalysis leads
- Attribution defensibility#1 / 9
- False-positive posture & appeal path#1 / 9
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.
TRM Labs#1 of 9 · score 83 · 1.0 point ahead
Chainalysis leads on
- Attribution defensibility9 vs 8
- Access & price transparency3 vs 2
TRM Labs leads on
- Coverage for your stack9 vs 6
Largest single reason TRM Labs is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: TRM Labs has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Elliptic#3 of 9 · score 78 · 4.0 points behind
Chainalysis leads on
- Attribution defensibility9 vs 7
- False-positive posture & appeal path6 vs 4
Elliptic leads on
- Coverage for your stack8 vs 6
Largest single reason Chainalysis is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Elliptic has no verified pricing for this scenario.
MistTrack (SlowMist)#4 of 9 · score 64 · 18.0 points behind
Chainalysis leads on
- Attribution defensibility9 vs 3
- False-positive posture & appeal path6 vs 2
- Coverage for your stack6 vs 4
MistTrack (SlowMist) leads on
- Access & price transparency10 vs 3
Largest single reason Chainalysis is ahead: published criteria (+12.0 display points).Scenario cost: Chainalysis has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 82 · gap 1.0Why TRM Labs ranks above Chainalysis
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTRM LabsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.115.6−1.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight5.65.6same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisTRM LabsPoints
Attribution defensibility · w3098+0.96, better
Coverage for your stack · w2469−2.30, worse
Access & price transparency · w2032+0.64, better
Net8283−1.0
Your scenario
Chainalysis is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. 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
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 3 November 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 median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 9 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
7 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 3 November 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #1 to #2 across one-point re-runs
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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Attribution defensibilitystrength 9 · weight 30Report an error—3 November 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.False-positive posture & appeal pathstrength 6 · weight 26Report an error—3 November 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.Coverage for your stackstrength 6 · weight 24Report an error—3 November 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.Access & price transparencystrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—3 November 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 Attribution defensibility · 30% (Chainalysis 9/10)Scored by False-positive posture & appeal path · 26% (Chainalysis 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: 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: Coverage for your stack (24%), Access & price transparency (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Quote-only for every paid product. Chainalysis publishes no price list on its own domain: chainalysis.com/pricing/ returns HTTP 404, and the Address Screening page (chainalysis.com/product/address-screening/), read 3 November 2026, routes only to "Request a demo"; KYT and Reactor do the same. The one free product is the on-chain sanctions oracle; its docs page (go.chainalysis.com/chainalysis-oracle-docs.html) says "The smart contract is available for anyone to use and does not require a customer relationship with Chainalysis." Price figures circulating on third-party sites trace to no Chainalysis page and are not printed here. Re-read 3 November 2026.Chainalysis — verified source ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDChainalysis — verified source ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Enterprise sales only for anything with a risk score: demo request, contract, no self-serve signup, no published free trial.
- Availability note
- Enterprise sales only for anything with a risk score: demo request, contract, no self-serve signup, no published free trial. Chainalysis Master Subscription Agreement (chainalysis.com/msa), read 3 November 2026, §3.7.4: "Licensee shall not use the Services in connection with, or for the benefit of, provide Authorized User credentials to, or otherwise permit access to the Services by, any country, government, organization, entity, or person that is restricted by the HM Treasury Sanctions List, EU Consolidated List of Sanctions, United Nations Sanctions List, or any U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control" list. No country list is published; the restriction follows the named sanctions lists.
Legal entity on file: Chainalysis, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Chainalysis: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 3 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 82, #2 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 wallet_screening:chainalysis:2026.10.18:8a4a1bd0c003
Are you Chainalysis? 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.