Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- cryptoquant.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
CryptoQuant
Exchange-flow and onchain research
Trading Tools
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 trading tools in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is CryptoQuant right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7/10; the category best is 8
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?8/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6/10 here; TradingView 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 crypto trading tool shows where it lands for you.
What will CryptoQuant cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is CryptoQuant?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to CryptoQuant
Compare all 4- 1TradingView5 points above · stronger on what the affordable tier refuses (9 against 6)81
- 3CoinGlassLevel on score · stronger on what the affordable tier refuses (9 against 6)76
- 4Laevitas1 point below · stronger on when yesterdays number changes (8 against 7)75
For your setup
Find out if CryptoQuant fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where CryptoQuant 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 crypto trading toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why CryptoQuant 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 (22.5 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
327+7.177.08#2/7Loading evidence…
268+6.668.08#1/7Loading evidence…
246+4.616.09#3/7Loading evidence…
187+4.035.08#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind TradingView, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 75–78 and ranks #2–#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 CryptoQuant’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.
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes TradingView+381#2 → #1
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes TradingView+381#2 → #1
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? 7 → 6 on its ladder · CoinGlass passes it−175#2 → #4
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? 8 → 7 on its ladder · CoinGlass passes it−175#2 → #3
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? 6 → 5 on its ladder · CoinGlass passes it−175#2 → #3
Smallest climb: “If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?” 7 → 10 passes TradingView, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? — 8/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You will buy a $29/mo seat believing you bought CryptoQuant, and discover that on-chain data over the API does not start until Professional at $99–$109/mo (on 2026-09-28 the Basic and Advanced cards gave only 'API access: market data', while the page's own FAQ still said the API key is for Professional and Premium only), that full API history and the 800 req/min limit do not start until Premium at $799/mo billed annually only, and that every regular plan is capped at one seat, with a 'Personal use' licence on every tier below the $799 Premium, the only regular plan marked 'Business use' — redistribution licensing is Enterprise-only, sales-gated. Underneath that, the exposure this category was built to price: the exchange-flow number you traded on is produced by a wallet-address clustering heuristic the vendor names ('dusting and machine learning-based clustering') but never publishes, and which it says outright 'continues to evolve around time'. Your history will be rewritten as new exchange wallets are found — and to the vendor's credit it says so on the Exchange Reserve endpoint itself, not just in the small print: the BTC Exchange Flows namespace carries 'This endpoint does not support Point-In-Time (PIT) accuracy due to periodic updates to wallet address clustering' and names the window in which the rewrite happens, 'Tuesday 00:00 UTC every week'. What you cannot do is ask the API what the number was last Monday: there is no as-of parameter anywhere in the published spec, so a backtest run today cannot be reproduced against the data you actually traded on.
Competitive position
Where CryptoQuant 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 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 716.8 of 30 · best 18.6
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 CryptoQuant leads
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?#2 / 7
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?#1 / 7
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?#3 / 7
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?#2 / 7
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.
CoinGlass#3 of 7 · score 76 · same score
CryptoQuant leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7 vs 6
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?7 vs 4
CoinGlass leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9 vs 6
Largest single reason CryptoQuant is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGlass has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Laevitas#4 of 7 · score 75 · 1.0 point behind
CryptoQuant leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6 vs 4
Laevitas leads on
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 7
Largest single reason CryptoQuant is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: Laevitas has no verified pricing for this scenario.
TradingView#1 of 7 · score 81 · 5.0 points ahead
CryptoQuant leads onNo scored criterion
TradingView leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9 vs 6
Largest single reason TradingView is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: TradingView has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 76 · gap 5.0Why TradingView ranks above CryptoQuant
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 5.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTradingViewGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.818.6−4.7, 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 criterionThisTradingViewPoints
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? · w2469−2.30, worse
Net7681−5.0
Your scenario
CryptoQuant is not priced for this scenario
Taker fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are 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
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputTrading
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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 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 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?strength 7 · 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.Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?strength 8 · 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.What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?strength 6 · weight 24Report 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.When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?strength 7 · weight 18Report 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? · 32% (CryptoQuant 7/10)Scored by Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? · 26% (CryptoQuant 8/10)Scored by When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · 18% (CryptoQuant 7/10)
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 tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Read on https://
cryptoquant .com /pricing on 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200, 508,863 bytes). The server-rendered text is navigation only; the prices ship in the page's i18n payload and render in a browser (a headless-browser render was captured the same day). Payload strings, key by key: Basic "@pr_26":"Basic" / "@pr_28":"Free". Advanced "@pr_41":"Advanced" / "@pr_43":"$39" / "@pr_44":"per month, billed monthly" / "@pr_45":"$29" / "@pr_46":"per month, billed yearly". Professional "@pr_59":"Professional" / "@pr_61":"$109" / "@pr_62":"per month, billed monthly" / "@pr_63":"$99" / "@pr_64":"per month, billed yearly". Premium "@pr_77":"Premium" / "@pr_79":"$799" / "@pr_80":"available on annual plan only" / "@pr_82":"per month, billed yearly". Enterprise "@pr_161":"Enterprise" / "@pr_171":"Contact Sales" / "@pr_173":"Annual billing only". The plan-card namespace agrees: "@co_1402":"$29", "@co_1403":"$39", "@co_1404":"$109", "@co_1405":"$99", "@co_1406":"$799". Rendered in the browser: Advanced "$39" "/month" monthly or "$29" "/month" annually, Professional "$109" or "$99", Premium "Annual billing only" "$799" "/month", Enterprise "Contact sales". NEW SINCE 17 August 2026, flagged on the page itself ("Minute-resolution market data is now on CryptoQuant."): API access now starts at the free tier. Plan cards: Basic "API access: market data" "10K API credits/mo"; Advanced "API access: market data" "300K API credits/mo"; Professional "API access: market data and on-chain data" "500K API credits/mo"; Premium "Unlimited API credits". Rendered comparison rows, Basic / Advanced / Professional / Premium: Rate limits "10 req/min" / "60 req/min" / "120 req/min" / "800 req/min"; API historical data "30 days" / "1 year" / "1 year" / "Full history"; License "Personal use" / "Personal use" / "Personal use" / "Business use"; Seats 1 / 1 / 1 / 1. Trial terms in the same payload: "All new users will receive a $39 credit for a free trial." ("@pr_3"), "Try free for 7 days" ("@pr_210"), "We offer all new subscribers a 1-week trial period" ("@pr_127") and "Try free for 1 month." ("@co_1045"). Refunds: "CryptoQuant subscriptions are non-refundable unless you request a refund for an unused plan within 24 hours." ("@pr_138"). No "Pro+" tier and no 199-dollar price appear anywhere in the served bytes (the August correction of the legacy record stands).CryptoQuant — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDCryptoQuant — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), XRP Ledger (XRP), TRON (TRX), BNB, Solana (SOL), Dogecoin (DOGE), Cardano (ADA), Avalanche (AVAX), Sui (SUI), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Monero (XMR), ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum, Stablecoins on Ethereum and Tron
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No geographic restriction found, and the terms could not be read. https://
cryptoquant .com /terms-of-service returned HTTP 403 (5,440 bytes) to a server-side curl and HTTP 403 to the fetch tool on 17 August 2026 — Cloudflare bot interdiction, since /pricing on the same host returned 200. I therefore found NEITHER a market restriction NOR the standard OFAC/sanctions representation, because the document that would carry either is not machine-loadable. What the public surfaces do show is global positioning with a Korean operating base and no gate: https:// userguide .cryptoquant .com /what-is-cryptoquant /introduction /why-trust-cryptoquant-metrics states 'Over 1M traders worldwide are using our data' and 'our firm has also helped solve a number of money laundering cases in South Korea, and globally, by utilizing our address label data - closely working with Korean Police Agency and Prosecution Services. The South Korean government has supported us by spending one million USD to investigate wallets since 2019.' The product ships a Korea Premium Index (https:// docs .cryptoquant .com /data-guide /fund-premium /korea-premium-index) and Korean-language docs (userguide.cryptoquant.com/ko/...). Payment is Stripe-based per the pricing payload ('@co_1242':'Access to Stripe is currently unstable.'). Scored `global` on the absence of any published restriction, with the ToS gap stated in `unresolved`. This is a research gap, not a finding of unrestricted availability.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with CryptoQuant: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 76, #2 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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt trading_tools:cryptoquant:2026.10.18:fe3bbc501d8a
Are you CryptoQuant? 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.