Provider at a glance
- Category
- Onchain Monitoring
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- forta.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 68 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Forta Firewall
Transaction screening for rollups
Onchain Monitoring
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 onchain monitoring in the published ranking
68
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Forta Firewall right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What it can actually DO9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Verified pre-emptive catches3/10 here; Hexagate (by Chainalysis) scores 5
- False-positive honesty and detection method3/10 here; Venn Network (formerly Ironblocks) scores 6
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 monitoring platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Forta Firewall cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Forta Firewall?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Forta Firewall
Compare all 4- 3Hexagate (by Chainalysis)4 points above · stronger on verified interventions (5 against 3)72
- 5Cyvers4 points below · weaker on response capability (7 against 9)64
- 6Venn Network (formerly Ironblocks)5 points below · stronger on false positive posture (6 against 3)63
For your setup
Find out if Forta Firewall fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Forta Firewall 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 monitoring platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Forta Firewall 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 (13.9 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
403+3.843.08#4/7Loading evidence…
259+7.207.09#1/7Loading evidence…
203+1.924.06#5/7Loading evidence…
152+0.962.03#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Hexagate (by Chainalysis), #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–70 and stays #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 Forta Firewall’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.
Verified pre-emptive catches 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Hexagate (by Chainalysis)+273#4 → #3
False-positive honesty and detection method 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes Hexagate (by Chainalysis)+473#4 → #3
Pricing and procurement disclosure 2 → 7 on its ladder · passes Hexagate (by Chainalysis)+572#4 → #3
Verified pre-emptive catches 3 → 1 on its ladder · Cyvers passes it−263#4 → #5
What it can actually DO 9 → 6 on its ladder · Cyvers passes it−363#4 → #5
Smallest climb: verified pre-emptive catches 3 → 5 passes Hexagate (by Chainalysis), #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What it can actually DO — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Verified pre-emptive catches — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- False-positive honesty and detection method — 3/10 against a category best of 6/10
Record watch-outs
- Protection is a property of the chain, not your contract: Firewall runs at the sequencer, so if you deploy on a rollup that has not integrated it (or on Ethereum L1), you get nothing from it.
- Sourcing: neither the treasury sentence nor the revenue model appears on forta.org/firewall. Both are from the Forta blog post 'A New Chapter for FORT' (26 March 2025), which also confirms FP-8 removed 'the minting function and MINTER role from the FORT token contract... permanently capping its supply at 1 billion tokens' and the 'transition from threat detection to threat prevention'. The Firewall page itself yields only '> 99% recall', '< 0.0002% false positives' and CTAs 'Get Started', 'Stake your FORT', 'Read the Case Study', 'Request A Demo', 'Launch App' — and the 'Read the Case Study' links go to the Plume and Ink integration posts, not to interventions. The Forta x Ink post (3 February 2026) states 'Forta Firewall has screened more than 750 million transactions across supported chains'.
- Its named record is detection, not prevention: the WooTrade post states "Forta's first alert was triggered at 15:42:22 PM UTC, approximately 16 seconds after the attack began" and that "an automated incident response system could have saved the protocol $4.8M", and the launch post's SumerMoney case is a backtest ("Only the exploit tx would have been blocked by Firewall"). The published false-positive figure has tightened from "< 0.001% (1 in 100,000 txs)" at launch to "<0.0002% (1 in 500,000 transactions)" in the docs with no methodology, and the docs state that flagged transactions "are not permanently blocked, but delayed".
Competitive position
Where Forta Firewall 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#4 / 710.4 of 30 · best 14.8
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 Forta Firewall leads
- What it can actually DO#1 / 7
- Pricing and procurement disclosure#2 / 7
Where it trails
- False-positive honesty and detection method#5 / 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.
Hexagate (by Chainalysis)#3 of 7 · score 72 · 4.0 points ahead
Forta Firewall leads on
- What it can actually DO9 vs 7
Hexagate (by Chainalysis) leads on
- Verified pre-emptive catches5 vs 3
- False-positive honesty and detection method5 vs 3
Largest single reason Hexagate (by Chainalysis) is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Hexagate (by Chainalysis) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Cyvers#5 of 7 · score 64 · 4.0 points behind
Forta Firewall leads on
- What it can actually DO9 vs 7
- Pricing and procurement disclosure2 vs 1
Cyvers leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Forta Firewall is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Cyvers has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Venn Network (formerly Ironblocks)#6 of 7 · score 63 · 5.0 points behind
Forta Firewall leads on
- Verified pre-emptive catches3 vs 2
- What it can actually DO9 vs 5
Venn Network (formerly Ironblocks) leads on
- False-positive honesty and detection method6 vs 3
Largest single reason Forta Firewall is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Venn Network (formerly Ironblocks) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 68 · gap 11.0Why Hypernative ranks above Forta Firewall
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 11.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisHypernativeGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.414.8−11.4, 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 criterionThisHypernativePoints
Verified pre-emptive catches · w4038−6.40, worse
What it can actually DO · w2598+0.80, better
False-positive honesty and detection method · w2034−0.64, worse
Pricing and procurement disclosure · w1521+0.48, better
Net6879−11.0
Your scenario
Forta Firewall 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 22 October 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 22 October 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 #4 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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Verified pre-emptive catchesstrength 3 · weight 40Report an error—22 October 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 it can actually DOstrength 9 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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.False-positive honesty and detection methodstrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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.Pricing and procurement disclosurestrength 2 · weight 15Report an error—22 October 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 Verified pre-emptive catches · 40% (Forta Firewall 3/10)Scored by False-positive honesty and detection method · 20% (Forta Firewall 3/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, 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 it can actually DO (25%), Pricing and procurement disclosure (15%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not published. The Firewall page (forta.org/firewall, fetched 22 October 2026) offers "Get Started", "Stake your FORT", "Read the Case Study", "Request A Demo" and "Launch App", with no price, tier or per-transaction fee. Forta's "A New Chapter for FORT" post (26 March 2025, fetched 22 October 2026) discloses only the model: Firewall "generates revenue through fees paid by rollups and protocols for screening transactions", expected to scale with screened volume, and "All Firewall revenue flows back to the Forta treasury". No list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.Forta Firewall — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDForta Firewall — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 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
- Forta Terms of Use (forta.org/terms-of-use, "Last Updated March 8, 2022", read 22 October 2026) require users to warrant they are not "A CITIZEN OF, ARE LOCATED IN, ARE INCORPORATED IN, OR HAVE A REGISTERED OFFICE OR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN A STATE, COUNTRY, TERRITORY OR ANY OTHER RESTRICTED JURISDICTION OR COUNTRY SUBJECT TO ANY SANCTIONS OR RESTRICTIONS PURSUANT TO ANY APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING THE CRIMEA REGION, CUBA, IRAN, NORTH KOREA, SYRIA, RUSSIA, OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY" sanctioned by the UK, Cayman Islands, UN, US or EU, and the clause also covers "ANY JURISDICTIONS IN WHICH THE TRANSACTING OF CRYPTOCURRENCIES IS PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER". Protection is a property of the chain: Firewall screens only on rollups that have integrated it (e.g. Ink, Plume, Celo) or protocols that add the Firewall integration.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Forta Firewall: 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
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 68, #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 onchain_monitoring:forta_firewall_monitoring:2026.10.18:4473bca50edc
Are you Forta Firewall? 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.