Provider at a glance
- Category
- Oracles
- Entity
- All 4 Chainlink products
- Official website
- docs.chain.link
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 61 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Chainlink
Push oracle network
Oracles
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 oracles in the published ranking
61
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Chainlink right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Failure-mode architecture6/10; the category best is 7
- Adoption as stress-testing10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Incident transparency2/10 here; the category best is 10
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record1/10 here; Api3 scores 7
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 blockchain oracle shows where it lands for you.
What will Chainlink cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Chainlink?
- 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 Chainlink
Compare all 4- 3Api37 points above · stronger on exploit record (7 against 1)68
- 5RedStoneLevel on score · stronger on exploit record (6 against 1)61
- 6Chronicle Protocol2 points below · stronger on exploit record (7 against 1)59
For your setup
Find out if Chainlink fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Chainlink 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 blockchain oracleNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Chainlink 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 (13.8 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
302+1.922.010#2/9Loading evidence…
261+0.835.08#9/9Loading evidence…
246+4.614.07#2/9Loading evidence…
2010+6.405.010#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−7behind Api3, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–63 and ranks #4–#5
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Chainlink’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.
Incident transparency 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes Api3+469#4 → #3
Exploited-via-this-oracle record 1 → 6 on its ladder · passes Api3+569#4 → #3
Incident transparency 2 → 1 on its ladder · RedStone passes it−160#4 → #5
Exploited-via-this-oracle record 1 → 0 on its ladder · RedStone passes it−160#4 → #5
Failure-mode architecture 6 → 5 on its ladder · RedStone passes it−160#4 → #5
Smallest climb: incident transparency 2 → 6 passes Api3, #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Failure-mode architecture — 6/10, category best 7/10
- Adoption as stress-testing — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Incident transparency — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record — 1/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Opacity. With no public status page, no published uptime and no list pricing, you cannot independently verify reliability or budget cost before a…
- Push Data Feeds are permissionless to read on-chain. Data Streams, bespoke feeds and any low-latency product require a sales conversation, and since pay-per-verification was deprecated Data Streams is billed by subscription only.
- Venus/Blizz LUNA minAnswer floor (May 2022, ~$11.2M+); Euler-Avalanche deUSD feed at $1.03 (29 May 2025, >$500k liquidated); Moonwell…
Competitive position
Where Chainlink 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#4 / 910.3 of 30 · best 15.2
Friction#4 / 90.7 of 10 · best 3.3
Trust record#3 / 94.8 of 8 · best 5.6
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Chainlink leads
- Incident transparency#2 / 9
- Failure-mode architecture#2 / 9
- Adoption as stress-testing#1 / 9
Where it trails
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record#9 / 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.
RedStone#5 of 9 · score 61 · same score
Chainlink leads on
- Incident transparency2 vs 1
- Failure-mode architecture6 vs 5
- Adoption as stress-testing10 vs 6
RedStone leads on
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record6 vs 1
Largest single reason Chainlink is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: RedStone has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Chronicle Protocol#6 of 9 · score 59 · 2.0 points behind
Chainlink leads on
- Failure-mode architecture6 vs 5
- Adoption as stress-testing10 vs 1
Chronicle Protocol leads on
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record7 vs 1
Largest single reason Chainlink is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Chronicle Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Api3#3 of 9 · score 68 · 7.0 points ahead
Chainlink leads on
- Adoption as stress-testing10 vs 5
Api3 leads on
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record7 vs 1
- Failure-mode architecture7 vs 6
Largest single reason Api3 is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Api3 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 61 · gap 22.0Why Pyth Network ranks above Chainlink
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 22.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisPyth NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.315.2−12.7, worse
Friction · 12% weight0.73.3−6.8, worse
Trust record · 9% weight4.85.6−2.1, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisPyth NetworkPoints
Incident transparency · w30210−7.68, worse
Exploited-via-this-oracle record · w2614−2.50, worse
Failure-mode architecture · w2462+3.07, better
Adoption as stress-testing · w20109+0.64, better
Net6183−22.0
Your scenario
Chainlink is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 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 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #4 to #5 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.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
Incident transparencystrength 2 · 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.Exploited-via-this-oracle recordstrength 1 · 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.Failure-mode architecturestrength 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.Adoption as stress-testingstrength 10 · 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
- Oracle failure: a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.Scored by Incident transparency · 30% (Chainlink 2/10)Scored by Exploited-via-this-oracle record · 26% (Chainlink 1/10)Scored by Failure-mode architecture · 24% (Chainlink 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, 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: Adoption as stress-testing (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No published list price for any product. (a) Data Feeds: no fee schedule is published; docs say each data feed is 'built and funded by the community of users who rely on accurate, up-to-date data in their smart contracts', and Chainlink Scale lets blockchain ecosystems 'contribute economic resources that offset the integration, maintenance, and operating costs of Chainlink services on their networks'. (b) Data Streams: 'Chainlink Data Streams uses a subscription-based billing option'; the pay-per-verification billing model 'has been deprecated'. The billing page carries no rates and says 'Contact us to learn more about Mainnet pricing and subscription options'.Chainlink — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDChainlink — verified source ↗ · 14 September 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
- Push Data Feeds are permissionless to read on-chain. Data Streams, bespoke feeds and any low-latency product require a sales conversation, and since pay-per-verification was deprecated Data Streams is billed by subscription only.
- Availability note
- Push Data Feeds are permissionless to read on-chain. Data Streams, bespoke feeds and any low-latency product require a sales conversation, and since pay-per-verification was deprecated Data Streams is billed by subscription only. The Terms of Service ask users to represent that they are 'not a citizen, resident, or organized in a jurisdiction or territory that is the subject of comprehensive country-wide, territory-wide, or regional economic sanctions by the United States, the European Union, any member state of the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, or the United Nations'.
Legal entity on file: Chainlink, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Chainlink: 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
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 61, #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 oracles:chainlink:2026.10.18:894df2ea864b
Are you Chainlink? 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.