Provider at a glance
- Category
- OTC Desks
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- falconx.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 55 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
FalconX
Institutional prime brokerage
OTC Desks
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 9 OTC desks in the published ranking
55
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is FalconX right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published minimum ticket1/10 here; Bitfinex OTC scores 6
- Counterparty footing and asset segregation7/10 here; the category best is 9
- Documented settlement mechanics4/10 here; Cumberland (DRW) scores 9
- Published price transparency1/10 here; Cumberland (DRW) scores 5
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 OTC desk shows where it lands for you.
What will FalconX cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is FalconX?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
- On the registersMiCA: authorised, FALCONX LIMITED (MT, since 2026-06-26). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to FalconX
Compare all 4- 6Bitfinex OTC6 points above · stronger on published minimum ticket (6 against 1)61
- 7Cumberland (DRW)6 points above · stronger on documented settlement mechanics (9 against 4)61
- 9Wintermute OTC7 points below · stronger on published minimum ticket (3 against 1)48
For your setup
Find out if FalconX fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where FalconX 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 OTC deskNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why FalconX ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (11.1 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
301+0.965.010#7/9Loading evidence…
307+6.727.09#4/9Loading evidence…
224+2.826.09#8/9Loading evidence…
181+0.583.05#7/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind Cumberland (DRW), #7
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 53–57 and stays #8
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 FalconX’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.
Published minimum ticket 1 → 5 on its ladder · passes Cumberland (DRW)+462#8 → #6
Documented settlement mechanics 4 → 9 on its ladder · passes Cumberland (DRW)+562#8 → #6
Published price transparency 1 → 7 on its ladder · passes Cumberland (DRW)+662#8 → #6
Counterparty footing and asset segregation 7 → 3 on its ladder · Wintermute OTC passes it−447#8 → #9
Smallest climb: published minimum ticket 1 → 5 passes Cumberland (DRW), #7.
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
- Published minimum ticket — 1/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Counterparty footing and asset segregation — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Documented settlement mechanics — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Published price transparency — 1/10 against a category best of 5/10
Record watch-outs
- The entity you onboard to determines what you can actually trade, and the disclaimers make clear the perimeter is uneven: US options and forwards run through "FalconX Bravo, Inc., a CFTC-registered swap dealer", the EU entity is licensed under MiCA but "Some products and services published on this website are not regulated activities under MiCA and may not necessarily be available to customers residing in the European Economic Area (EEA)", and the Singapore entity is explicitly outside MAS supervision. A buyer should establish which FalconX entity will face them before assuming any of the headline capability list applies to their jurisdiction.
Competitive position
Where FalconX 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 / 914.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#8 / 98.3 of 30 · best 18.0
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where FalconX leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Published minimum ticket#7 / 9
- Documented settlement mechanics#8 / 9
- Published price transparency#7 / 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.
Cumberland (DRW)#7 of 9 · score 61 · 6.0 points ahead
FalconX leads on
- Counterparty footing and asset segregation7 vs 4
Cumberland (DRW) leads on
- Documented settlement mechanics9 vs 4
- Published price transparency5 vs 1
Largest single reason Cumberland (DRW) is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Cumberland (DRW) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Bitfinex OTC#6 of 9 · score 61 · 6.0 points ahead
FalconX leads on
- Counterparty footing and asset segregation7 vs 2
Bitfinex OTC leads on
- Published minimum ticket6 vs 1
- Documented settlement mechanics7 vs 4
- Published price transparency3 vs 1
Largest single reason Bitfinex OTC is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Bitfinex OTC has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Wintermute OTC#9 of 9 · score 48 · 7.0 points behind
FalconX leads on
- Counterparty footing and asset segregation7 vs 3
- Documented settlement mechanics4 vs 2
Wintermute OTC leads on
- Published minimum ticket3 vs 1
Largest single reason FalconX is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Wintermute OTC has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 55 · gap 25.0Why Gemini eOTC ranks above FalconX
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 25.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGemini eOTCGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.318.0−25.2, 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 criterionThisGemini eOTCPoints
Published minimum ticket · w30110−8.64, worse
Counterparty footing and asset segregation · w3078−0.96, worse
Documented settlement mechanics · w2248−2.82, worse
Published price transparency · w1812−0.58, worse
Net5580−25.0
Your scenario
FalconX is not priced for this scenario
Taker 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 24 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
Evidence read 24 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #8 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 24 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published minimum ticketstrength 1 · weight 30Report an error—24 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.Counterparty footing and asset segregationstrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—24 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.Documented settlement mechanicsstrength 4 · weight 22Report an error—24 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.Published price transparencystrength 1 · weight 18Report an error—24 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
- Insolvency failure (FalconX 7/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Counterparty footing and asset segregation · 30%
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Documented settlement mechanics · 22% (FalconX 4/10)Scored by Published price transparency · 18% (FalconX 1/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Exit failure, Information 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: Published minimum ticket (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- FalconX publishes no spread, fee, commission or bps figure on any page fetched in this session. The only pricing language is the adjective without the number: "Execute sizeable orders with transparent pricing and minimal slippage via RFQ/Streaming across crypto and FX markets" and "Trade 400+ tokens¹ with competitive pricing powered by FalconX’s deep, differentiated liquidity" (https://
www .falconx .io /services /trading, fetched 24 September 2026). The homepage quantifies volume rather than price: "Executed $2.5T+ in trading volume" (falconx.io, fetched 24 September 2026).FalconX — official pricing page ↗ · 24 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDFalconX — official pricing page ↗ · 24 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with FalconX: 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
- 24 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 55, #8 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 otc_desks:falconx:2026.10.18:a9fe754b7f1f
Are you FalconX? 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.