Provider at a glance
- Category
- Paid Crypto Research Seats
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- cryptoeq.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 72 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
CryptoEQ
Reader-paid crypto ratings
Paid Crypto Research Seats
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 paid crypto research seats in the published ranking
72
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is CryptoEQ right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?5/10, the category best
- Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation?5/10; the category best is 6
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?1/10 here; Blockworks Research scores 5
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?7/10 here; 10x Research 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 paid crypto research seat shows where it lands for you.
What will CryptoEQ cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is CryptoEQ?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to CryptoEQ
Compare all 4- 210x Research3 points above · stronger on what the paid tier refuses (9 against 7)75
- 3Blockworks Research1 point above · stronger on independence and who pays (5 against 1)73
- 5Weiss Ratings (crypto)2 points below · stronger on independence and who pays (3 against 1)70
For your setup
Find out if CryptoEQ fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where CryptoEQ 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 paid crypto research seatNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why CryptoEQ 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 (13.4 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
321+1.023.09#6/7Loading evidence…
265+4.162.05#1/7Loading evidence…
247+5.387.09#3/7Loading evidence…
185+2.885.06#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Blockworks Research, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–74 and ranks #3–#4
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 CryptoEQ’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.
Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told? 1 → 2 on its ladder · passes Blockworks Research+174#4 → #3
What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published? 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Blockworks Research+275#4 → #2
What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you? 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Blockworks Research+275#4 → #2
Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation? 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Blockworks Research+274#4 → #3
What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published? 5 → 3 on its ladder · Weiss Ratings (crypto) passes it−268#4 → #5
What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you? 7 → 5 on its ladder · Weiss Ratings (crypto) passes it−269#4 → #5
Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation? 5 → 3 on its ladder · Weiss Ratings (crypto) passes it−269#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?” 1 → 2 passes Blockworks Research, #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published? — 5/10, the category best
- Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation? — 5/10, category best 6/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told? — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Your $39.99 seat funds a shop that simultaneously sells 'custom advertising packages' across the same channels that carry its coverage and co-runs an accredited-investor crypto portfolio with Event Horizon Capital — with not one published sentence of conflict-of-interest policy — and its reports are overwritten in place, so the call you want to audit from last year no longer exists on the site.
Competitive position
Where CryptoEQ 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 · pool best
Published criteria#5 / 710.1 of 30 · best 12.5
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 CryptoEQ leads
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?#1 / 7
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?#6 / 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.
Blockworks Research#3 of 7 · score 73 · 1.0 point ahead
CryptoEQ leads on
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?5 vs 2
- Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation?5 vs 1
Blockworks Research leads on
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?5 vs 1
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?9 vs 7
Largest single reason Blockworks Research is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Blockworks Research has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Weiss Ratings (crypto)#5 of 7 · score 70 · 2.0 points behind
CryptoEQ leads on
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?5 vs 4
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?7 vs 4
Weiss Ratings (crypto) leads on
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?3 vs 1
Largest single reason CryptoEQ is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Weiss Ratings (crypto) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
10x Research#2 of 7 · score 75 · 3.0 points ahead
CryptoEQ leads on
- What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?5 vs 3
10x Research leads on
- Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?2 vs 1
- What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?9 vs 7
- Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation?6 vs 5
Largest single reason 10x Research is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: 10x Research has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
78 vs 72 · gap 6.0Why Bankless Premium ranks above CryptoEQ
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 6.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisBankless PremiumGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.112.5−6.2, 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 criterionThisBankless PremiumPoints
Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told? · w3216−5.12, worse
What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published? · w2652+2.50, better
Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation? · w1856−0.58, worse
Net7278−6.0
Your scenario
CryptoEQ 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 29 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 29 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #3 to #4 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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 29 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told?strength 1 · weight 32Report an error—29 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 makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published?strength 5 · weight 26Report an error—29 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 does the seat you can afford refuse to show you?strength 7 · weight 24Report an error—29 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.Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation?strength 5 · weight 18Report an error—29 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Who paid for this opinion, and would you be told? · 32% (CryptoEQ 1/10)Scored by What makes this token a Gold and that one a Deficient — is the rubric published? · 26% (CryptoEQ 5/10)Scored by Can I audit their old calls before paying — and does my archive survive cancellation? · 18% (CryptoEQ 5/10)
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: What does the seat you can afford refuse to show you? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Memberships section of https://
www .cryptoeq .io / (server-rendered, fetched 29 September 2026): Basic "$0.00"; Premium "$39.99" with a "YEARLY" / "MONTHLY" toggle; the hero reads "Unlock institutional-level research and analytics for just $39.99 a month." The yearly figure is not in the HTML: the page's own bundle https:// www .cryptoeq .io / _next /static /chunks /pages /index- 1edebf 3c12d9558 e .js (fetched 29 September 2026) contains the string children:o?"$299.99":"$39.99", i.e. $299.99 a year when the toggle is set to yearly. "Personal consulting", "Bespoke Solutions" and "Data Licensing" carry no published price. The terms (https:// www .cryptoeq .io /terms) still say "Fees shall be charged on a recurring monthly basis."CryptoEQ — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDCryptoEQ — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No market restriction found. /terms carries only a standard export-control eligibility clause — you may not 'Export, re-export, import, or transfer the CryptoEQ Platform except as authorized by United States law, the export control laws of your jurisdiction, and any other applicable laws' — which is an everywhere-eligibility rule, not a regional footprint. Governing law is Texas ('These Terms will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas'); 'All transactions on the CryptoEQ Platform are in United States currency (USD$).'
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with CryptoEQ: 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
- 29 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 72, #4 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 paid_research_seats:cryptoeq:2026.10.18:fa6e5d877b87
Are you CryptoEQ? 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.