Provider at a glance
- Category
- NFT Marketplaces
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- courtyard.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 55 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Courtyard
Vaulted collectible cards on Polygon
NFT Marketplaces
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 9 NFT marketplaces in the published ranking
55
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Courtyard right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Custody & approval risk5/10 here; the category best is 8
- True cost of a round trip2/10 here; OKX NFT Marketplace scores 4
- Exit liquidity honesty2/10 here; OKX NFT Marketplace scores 7
- Royalty enforcement3/10 here; SuperRare 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 NFT marketplace shows where it lands for you.
What will Courtyard cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Courtyard?
- 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 Courtyard
Compare all 4- 5OKX NFT Marketplace4 points above · stronger on liquidity (7 against 2)59
- 6SuperRare3 points above · stronger on royalties (9 against 3)58$360
- 8Magic Eden2 points below · stronger on liquidity (6 against 2)53$240
For your setup
Find out if Courtyard fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Courtyard 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 NFT marketplaceNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Courtyard 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 (10.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
305+4.804.08#4/9Loading evidence…
242+1.544.08#8/9Loading evidence…
242+1.545.09#8/9Loading evidence…
223+2.113.09#5/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind SuperRare, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 53–57 and ranks #7–#8
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Courtyard’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.
Custody & approval risk 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes SuperRare+259#7 → #6
True cost of a round trip 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes SuperRare+359#7 → #6
Exit liquidity honesty 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes SuperRare+359#7 → #6
Royalty enforcement 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes SuperRare+359#7 → #6
Custody & approval risk 5 → 4 on its ladder · Magic Eden passes it−153#7 → #8
True cost of a round trip 2 → 0 on its ladder · Magic Eden passes it−252#7 → #8
Exit liquidity honesty 2 → 0 on its ladder · Magic Eden passes it−252#7 → #8
Smallest climb: custody & approval risk 5 → 7 passes SuperRare, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Custody & approval risk — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- True cost of a round trip — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Exit liquidity honesty — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Royalty enforcement — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- No published volume or depth figure — card liquidity cannot be read from Courtyard’s own pages
- Courtyard’s documents disagree: the NFT Terms say no Courtyard Fee applies to standard marketplace transactions, but the Terms of Service (last updated 23 Dec 2024) still define an unquantified percentage Courtyard Fee
- Vending Machine mechanics face gambling-style consumer-protection criticism in Europe
- Minting is permissioned by a centralised backend; redemption requires KYC and fixed shipping terms
Competitive position
Where Courtyard 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#9 / 97.5 of 30 · best 16.9
Friction#1 / 94.7 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#2 / 93.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · pool best
Where Courtyard leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- True cost of a round trip#8 / 9
- Exit liquidity honesty#8 / 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.
Magic Eden#8 of 9 · score 53 · 2.0 points behind
Courtyard leads on
- Custody & approval risk5 vs 4
Magic Eden leads on
- True cost of a round trip4 vs 2
- Exit liquidity honesty6 vs 2
Largest single reason Courtyard is ahead: friction (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Courtyard has no verified pricing for this scenario.
SuperRare#6 of 9 · score 58 · 3.0 points ahead
Courtyard leads on
- Custody & approval risk5 vs 4
- True cost of a round trip2 vs 1
SuperRare leads on
- Royalty enforcement9 vs 3
Largest single reason SuperRare is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Courtyard has no verified pricing for this scenario.
OKX NFT Marketplace#5 of 9 · score 59 · 4.0 points ahead
Courtyard leads on
- Custody & approval risk5 vs 2
OKX NFT Marketplace leads on
- True cost of a round trip4 vs 2
- Exit liquidity honesty7 vs 2
- Royalty enforcement4 vs 3
Largest single reason OKX NFT Marketplace is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: OKX NFT Marketplace has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
84 vs 55 · gap 29.0Why OpenSea ranks above Courtyard
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 29.0 to within rounding. Courtyard is ahead on measured data (+3.6 in its favour).
DimensionThisOpenSeaGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.516.9−24.4, worse
Friction · 12% weight4.74.7same
Trust record · 9% weight3.26.4−8.3, worse
Measured data · 21% weight8.36.9+3.6, better
Published criterionThisOpenSeaPoints
Custody & approval risk · w3057−1.92, worse
True cost of a round trip · w2428−4.61, worse
Exit liquidity honesty · w2429−5.38, worse
Royalty enforcement · w2234−0.70, worse
Net5584−29.0
Your scenario
Courtyard is not priced for this scenario
Marketplace fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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 monthly volume · your input$1k
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 median$2406 of 9 rows priced
Cheapest priced$60 · UniSat MarketplaceDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with UniSat Marketplace
2 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
1 of 9 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, 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 #7 to #8 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
Custody & approval riskstrength 5 · 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 a round tripstrength 2 · 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.Exit liquidity honestystrength 2 · 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.Royalty enforcementstrength 3 · weight 22Report 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
- Custody failure (Courtyard 5/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Custody & approval risk · 30%
- Exit failure (Courtyard 2/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit liquidity honesty · 24%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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 a round trip (24%), Royalty enforcement (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Courtyard states '0% marketplace fees on all peer-to-peer transactions' (help centre), and its NFT Terms say 'No Courtyard Fee applies to standard marketplace transactions'. Accepting a Vending Machine Buyback Offer carries a 6% Courtyard fee, and the offer itself is based on Courtyard's own Fair Market Value algorithm. Item-for-item trades are free, but a fee (rate not published) applies to any cash component. Redemption adds shipping, a $2-per-card handling fee in high-demand periods, and US sales tax or non-US customs and import taxes. The older Terms of Service (last updated 23 Dec 2024) still define an unquantified percentage 'Courtyard Fee' on every purchase, so Courtyard's documents disagree.Courtyard NFT Terms & Asset Management Services Agreement + help centre ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDCourtyard NFT Terms & Asset Management Services Agreement + help centre ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global wallet-based users
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Permissioned minting against Courtyard inventory; Courtyard custody of the physical asset.
- Availability note
- Trading is global except U.S.-embargoed jurisdictions (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions). Redemption ships to most countries worldwide, with a few legal or logistical exceptions, and requires Persona KYC plus shipping and taxes (and a $2-per-card handling fee in high-demand periods). Card vaulting (graded cards and comics shipped from within the US) is currently paused. Polygon only.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Courtyard: 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 55, #7 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 nft_marketplace:courtyard:2026.10.18:ac26a0b45900
Are you Courtyard? 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.