Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Screeners
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- dexscreener.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 74 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
DEX Screener
Multichain DEX pair screener
Token Screeners
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 token screeners in the published ranking
74
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is DEX Screener right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo10/10, the category best
- Market coverage and data provenance8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones6/10 here; GeckoTerminal scores 8
- Yearly cost including trade fees8/10 here; GeckoTerminal 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 token screener shows where it lands for you.
What will DEX Screener cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is DEX Screener?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to DEX Screener
Compare all 4- 1GeckoTerminal8 points above · stronger on paid placement disclosure (8 against 6)82
- 3Birdeye11 points below · stronger on paid placement disclosure (8 against 6)63
- 4GMGN.AI15 points below · weaker on all in cost including execution (3 against 8)59
For your setup
Find out if DEX Screener fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where DEX Screener 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 token screenerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why DEX Screener 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 (24.7 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
346+6.536.08#3/7Loading evidence…
288+7.174.010#2/7Loading evidence…
2010+6.407.010#1/7Loading evidence…
188+4.616.09#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−8behind GeckoTerminal, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–76 and stays #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 DEX Screener’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.
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes GeckoTerminal+482#2 → #1
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 0 on its ladder · Birdeye passes it−661#2 → #3
Yearly cost including trade fees 8 → 1 on its ladder · Birdeye passes it−762#2 → #3
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo 10 → 1 on its ladder · Birdeye passes it−963#2 → #3
Smallest climb: how clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 10 passes GeckoTerminal, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo — 10/10, the category best
- Market coverage and data provenance — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Yearly cost including trade fees — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Paid products do not sit beside the ranking, they feed it. A $299 Enhanced Token Info purchase raises the Trending Score, a $2,000/day Trending Bar ad 'helps boost your token's Trending Score' per the product page, and boost packs apply a multiplier to it - and the boost pack prices are published on no page that could be loaded, so the one paid product with the most direct effect on rank is also the one whose price you cannot look up. At 500 or more active Boosts the token also unlocks what the docs call the Golden Ticker, which recolours the token's symbol gold on the screener itself - a paid change to how a row looks inside the list. The counterparty clause "DEX Screener, Inc. or Moon Eagle Advertising Services Inc., as applicable" is in the general Terms at https://docs.dexscreener.com/privacy/terms-and-conditions, not the boosting document.
Competitive position
Where DEX Screener 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 / 718.5 of 30 · best 21.5
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 DEX Screener leads
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones#3 / 7
- Yearly cost including trade fees#2 / 7
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo#1 / 7
- Market coverage and data provenance#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.
GeckoTerminal#1 of 7 · score 82 · 8.0 points ahead
DEX Screener leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo10 vs 9
GeckoTerminal leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 6
- Yearly cost including trade fees10 vs 8
- Market coverage and data provenance9 vs 8
Largest single reason GeckoTerminal is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: GeckoTerminal has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Birdeye#3 of 7 · score 63 · 11.0 points behind
DEX Screener leads on
- Yearly cost including trade fees8 vs 4
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo10 vs 5
- Market coverage and data provenance8 vs 6
Birdeye leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 6
Largest single reason DEX Screener is ahead: published criteria (+11.2 display points).Scenario cost: Birdeye has no verified pricing for this scenario.
GMGN.AI#4 of 7 · score 59 · 15.0 points behind
DEX Screener leads on
- Yearly cost including trade fees8 vs 3
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo10 vs 8
- Market coverage and data provenance8 vs 4
GMGN.AI leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason DEX Screener is ahead: published criteria (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: GMGN.AI has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 74 · gap 8.0Why GeckoTerminal ranks above DEX Screener
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 8.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGeckoTerminalGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.521.5−7.8, 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 criterionThisGeckoTerminalPoints
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones · w3468−2.18, worse
Yearly cost including trade fees · w28810−1.79, worse
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo · w20109+0.64, better
Market coverage and data provenance · w1889−0.58, worse
Net7482−8.0
Your scenario
DEX Screener 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 6 August 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 6 August 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 across every one-point re-run
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 6 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral onesstrength 6 · weight 34Report an error—6 August 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.Yearly cost including trade feesstrength 8 · weight 28Report an error—6 August 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.Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demostrength 10 · weight 20Report an error—6 August 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.Market coverage and data provenancestrength 8 · weight 18Report an error—6 August 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 How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones · 34% (DEX Screener 6/10)Scored by Market coverage and data provenance · 18% (DEX Screener 8/10)
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: Yearly cost including trade fees (28%), Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Free to the trader; the price is what a listed project pays. Trending Bar Advertising: "Order Now - from $2,000.00", "On the Trending Bar for all tokens on the same chain as your token, rotated randomly along with up to 5 other advertisers", "You can pick an ad package ranging from 24 hours up to 1 week" (re-fetched 28 October 2026 from https://
marketplace .dexscreener .com /product /trending-bar-ad, HTTP 200, all three strings unchanged). The page's own embedded product payload still prices the three variants in cents - trending-bar-ad-24-hours at 200000, trending-bar-ad-2-days at 400000 and trending-bar-ad-1-week at 1400000, i.e. (worked arithmetic from those cents figures, not a page string) 2,000, 4,000 and 14,000 dollars, a flat 2,000 dollars per day at every duration with no volume discount. The other two marketplace products, read the same day: Enhanced Token Info at from 499.00 struck to 299.00 dollars (https:// marketplace .dexscreener .com /product /token-info) and Token Advertising from 299.00 dollars (https:// marketplace .dexscreener .com /product /ad). Boost packs remain unpriced on every page loaded.DEX Screener — official pricing page ↗ · 6 August 2026 - Prices published in
- USDDEX Screener — official pricing page ↗ · 6 August 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with DEX Screener: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 6 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 74, #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.
- 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 screeners:dex_screener:2026.10.18:ab2f22d90845
Are you DEX Screener? 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.