Provider at a glance
- Category
- Simple Buy
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- finst.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Finst
Dutch crypto buying app for the EU
Simple Buy
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 14 simple buy in the published ranking
41
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $1.50 cost on your amount
Is Finst right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- All-in cost of the purchase9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Withdrawal to self-custody3/10 here; River scores 8
- Availability & onboarding friction6/10 here; Trade Republic scores 7
- Custody & regulatory posture7/10 here; River scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best simple buy app shows where it lands for you.
What will Finst cost you?
$1.50 cost on your amount
- How do you buy?
- One-time
- Amount
- $1k
- Instant-buy spread
- 0.15%
$9.75 below the median of 10 priced simple buy.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Finst?
- 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, Finst B.V. (NL, since 2025-07-24). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to Finst
Compare all 4- 6Trade RepublicLevel on score · stronger on withdrawal (7 against 3)41
- 7BitpandaLevel on score · stronger on withdrawal (4 against 3)41$9.90
- 8RiverLevel on score · stronger on withdrawal (8 against 3)41
For your setup
Find out if Finst fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Finst 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 simple buy appNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Finst ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.4 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
329+9.226.09#1/14Loading evidence…
263+2.504.010#10/14Loading evidence…
226+4.226.09#7/14Loading evidence…
207+4.486.010#3/14Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Relai, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 41–43 and ranks #4–#6
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 Finst’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.
All-in cost of the purchase 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Relai+143#5 → #4
Withdrawal to self-custody 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Relai+244#5 → #3
Availability & onboarding friction 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Relai+244#5 → #4
Custody & regulatory posture 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Relai+244#5 → #4
All-in cost of the purchase 9 → 8 on its ladder · Trade Republic passes it−141#5 → #6
Withdrawal to self-custody 3 → 2 on its ladder · Trade Republic passes it−141#5 → #6
Availability & onboarding friction 6 → 5 on its ladder · Trade Republic passes it−141#5 → #6
Smallest climb: all-in cost of the purchase 9 → 10 passes Relai, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- All-in cost of the purchase — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Withdrawal to self-custody — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Availability & onboarding friction — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Custody & regulatory posture — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Getting the coins out costs more than the buy: every crypto withdrawal pays the network fee plus a fixed €2.50 of third-party costs, so a €100 purchase moved to your own wallet costs more to move than to buy.
- No card funding: deposits are SEPA bank transfer everywhere, plus iDEAL-Wero in the Netherlands and Bancontact in Belgium.
Competitive position
Where Finst 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#4 / 146.0 of 20 · best 20.0
Published criteria#5 / 1415.3 of 30 · best 18.0
Friction#4 / 145.3 of 10 · best 7.3
Trust record#1 / 146.4 of 8 · pool best
Measured data#1 / 148.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Finst leads
- All-in cost of the purchase#1 / 14
- Custody & regulatory posture#3 / 14
Where it trails
- Withdrawal to self-custody#10 / 14
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.
Trade Republic#6 of 14 · score 41 · same score
Finst leads on
- All-in cost of the purchase9 vs 4
Trade Republic leads on
- Withdrawal to self-custody7 vs 3
- Availability & onboarding friction7 vs 6
Largest single reason Finst is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Trade Republic has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Bitpanda#7 of 14 · score 41 · same score
Finst leads on
- All-in cost of the purchase9 vs 7
- Custody & regulatory posture7 vs 6
Bitpanda leads on
- Withdrawal to self-custody4 vs 3
- Availability & onboarding friction7 vs 6
Largest single reason Finst is ahead: trust record (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Bitpanda is +$8.40 against Finst.
River#8 of 14 · score 41 · same score
Finst leads on
- All-in cost of the purchase9 vs 7
- Availability & onboarding friction6 vs 2
River leads on
- Withdrawal to self-custody8 vs 3
- Custody & regulatory posture9 vs 7
Largest single reason Finst is ahead: friction (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: River has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
86 vs 41 · gap 45.0Why Strike ranks above Finst
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 45.0 to within rounding. Finst is ahead on trust record (+2.1 in its favour).
DimensionThisStrikeGap share
Availability · 23% weight6.020.0−36.4, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight15.318.0−7.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight5.36.7−3.6, worse
Trust record · 9% weight6.45.6+2.1, better
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisStrikePoints
All-in cost of the purchase · w3297+2.05, better
Withdrawal to self-custody · w2638−4.16, worse
Availability & onboarding friction · w2269−2.11, worse
Custody & regulatory posture · w2076+0.64, better
Net4186−45.0
Your scenario
What Finst costs on your scenario
Instant-buy spread 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.
cost on your amount · default scenario — set your own
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputOne-time
Amount · your input$1k
Instant-buy spread · published rate0.15%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 27 October 2026.
cost on your amountCost is stated as cost on your amount in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$1.50
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1110 of 14 rows priced · Finst −$9.75 vs median
Cheapest priced$1.50 · FinstFinst is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
4 of 14 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 14 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 #4 to #6 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
All-in cost of the purchasestrength 9 · weight 32Report an error—14 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.Withdrawal to self-custodystrength 3 · weight 26Report an error—14 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.Availability & onboarding frictionstrength 6 · weight 22Report an error—14 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.Custody & regulatory posturestrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—14 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
- Custody failure (Finst 7/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Custody & regulatory posture · 20%
- Exit failure (Finst 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Withdrawal to self-custody · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: All-in cost of the purchase (32%), Availability & onboarding friction (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Finst fee schedule, "Valid as of 23/07/2026.", read 2026-10-27: trading fee "0,15% of trade amount. No added spread.", on all buy, sell, swap and auto-invest orders; EUR deposits and withdrawals free; crypto deposits free; crypto withdrawal = network fee "+ 2,50€ of third-party costs per withdrawal", the exact network fee shown on confirmation.Finst — official fee schedule ↗ · 27 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDFinst — official fee schedule ↗ · 27 October 2026
- Licences held
- European Union: MiCA crypto-asset service provider authorisation, held by Finst B.V. (LEI 724500UI8UD7HKGVJX65), home state the Netherlands, competent authority the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), authorised 24 July 2025, no end date. Read on ESMA's interim MiCA CASP register (CASPS.csv, read 21 October 2026, data/esma-casps.json). The AFM number 41000015 is the one Finst's own site states ("authorized as a crypto-asset service provider by the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) under number 41000015", read 27 October 2026); the AFM's register page renders its rows by script and returned no row to a plain read on 27 October 2026, so the number is not asserted from the AFM register itself. 41000015
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- europe
- Primary markets
- European Union, Switzerland
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Deposits by SEPA bank transfer in every listed country, plus iDEAL-Wero (Netherlands) and Bancontact (Belgium); no card funding.
- Availability note
- Finst's country page says it "offers its services across all European member states" and lists 28 countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Finst: 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.
11 methodology entries
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 41, #5 of 14. 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 simple_buy:finst:2026.10.18:a7c3fbcddd25
Are you Finst? 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.