Provider at a glance
- Category
- Dev Frameworks
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- getfoundry.sh
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 83 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Foundry
Solidity toolchain written in Rust
Dev Frameworks
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 dev frameworks in the published ranking
83
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Foundry right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Maintenance That Is Actually Happening10/10, the category best
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships10/10, the category best
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path8/10; the category best is 9
- Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure10/10, the category best
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 development framework shows where it lands for you.
What will Foundry cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Foundry?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Foundry
Compare all 4- 2Hardhat2 points below · stronger on lock in exit cost (9 against 8)81
- 3Starknet Foundry (snforge)11 points below · weaker on supply chain posture (5 against 10)72
- 4Remix IDE14 points below · stronger on lock in exit cost (9 against 8)69
For your setup
Find out if Foundry fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Foundry 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 development frameworkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Foundry ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (30.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
3010+9.609.010#1/7Loading evidence…
3010+9.609.010#1/7Loading evidence…
258+6.406.09#3/7Loading evidence…
1510+4.808.010#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+2over Hardhat, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 82–83 and stays #1
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 Foundry’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.
Maintenance That Is Actually Happening 10 → 8 on its ladder · Hardhat passes it−280#1 → #2
Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships 10 → 8 on its ladder · Hardhat passes it−280#1 → #2
Lock-In And Documented Exit Path 8 → 6 on its ladder · Hardhat passes it−281#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Maintenance That Is Actually Happening — 10/10, the category best
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships — 10/10, the category best
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- Foundry is the reference implementation this category's scoring is calibrated against, so a near-top score is expected rather than a discovery. The Sigstore instructions are gone: SECURITY.md was deleted on 2026-09-25, and verification now runs through `gh attestation verify` on /introduction/verifying-releases. Lock-in scores 8, not 9: the whole docs build contains exactly one migration guide, a v1.0 version-upgrade guide; the Hardhat interop is a subsection plus a CLI flag, both pointing into Foundry; and the first-party plugin repository is a public archive whose default branch last committed on 2024-08-01. Foundry documents how to arrive, not how to leave. The 9-10 band asks for a named interop or migration document; this is the 7-8 band, held at its top only because contract source is plain portable Solidity and Hardhat 3 runs Foundry-compatible Solidity tests. Two further notes. (1) Stable has caught up with nightly: on 2026-09-28 /releases/latest redirects to v1.8.3, published 2026-09-15, after v1.8.0, v1.8.1 and v1.8.2. The 10 on cadence rests on that release, nightlies dated 2026-09-28 and six other September days, and 1,249 master commits since 2026-06-30, so a buyer who pins stable reads the same cadence. (2) Only the framework is scored: the MPP payment-gated RPC guide (RPC Nodes) and Starknet Foundry/snforge are left out.
Competitive position
Where Foundry 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#1 / 722.8 of 30 · pool best
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 Foundry leads
- Maintenance That Is Actually Happening#1 / 7
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships#1 / 7
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path#3 / 7
- Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure#1 / 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.
Hardhat#2 of 7 · score 81 · 2.0 points behind
Foundry leads on
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships10 vs 9
- Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure10 vs 8
Hardhat leads on
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path9 vs 8
Largest single reason Foundry is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Hardhat has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Starknet Foundry (snforge)#3 of 7 · score 72 · 11.0 points behind
Foundry leads on
- Maintenance That Is Actually Happening10 vs 9
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships10 vs 9
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path8 vs 6
Starknet Foundry (snforge) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Foundry is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: Starknet Foundry (snforge) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Remix IDE#4 of 7 · score 69 · 14.0 points behind
Foundry leads on
- Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships10 vs 4
- Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure10 vs 6
Remix IDE leads on
- Lock-In And Documented Exit Path9 vs 8
Largest single reason Foundry is ahead: published criteria (+13.5 display points).Scenario cost: Remix IDE has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
83 vs 81 · gap 2.0Why Foundry ranks above Hardhat
DimensionThisHardhatGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight22.822.0+2.1, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisHardhatPoints
Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships · w30109+0.96, better
Lock-In And Documented Exit Path · w2589−0.80, worse
Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure · w15108+0.96, better
Net8381+2.0
Your scenario
Foundry is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10
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.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Maintenance That Is Actually Happeningstrength 10 · weight 30Report 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.Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Shipsstrength 10 · weight 30Report 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.Lock-In And Documented Exit Pathstrength 8 · weight 25Report 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.Distribution, Pinning And Disclosurestrength 10 · weight 15Report 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
- Contract failure (Foundry 10/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Distribution, Pinning And Disclosure · 15%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Maintenance That Is Actually Happening · 30% (Foundry 10/10)Scored by Lock-In And Documented Exit Path · 25% (Foundry 8/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness 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: Testing Depth The Toolchain Itself Ships (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No pricing is published, because the toolchain is free and open source. Re-read 2026-09-28: https://
getfoundry .sh /pricing returns HTTP 404, and the installation page (https:// getfoundry .sh /introduction /installation, HTTP 200, fetched 28 September 2026) reads "Foundry is installed using foundryup, the official installer and version manager." followed by the free download `curl -L https:// getfoundry .sh /install | bash` and then `foundryup`; no payment step exists anywhere in the flow, and the same page states "Foundry no longer publishes npm packages for forge, cast, anvil, or chisel." A case-insensitive search of the complete docs build (https:// getfoundry .sh /llms-full .txt, 3,225,524 bytes, fetched 28 September 2026) finds zero occurrences of "enterprise", "billing", "per seat", "license key", "paid plan" or "Pro plan". Its "pricing" hits are a gas-configuration heading ("Configure gas limits and pricing for tests"), a sample contract src/Pricing.sol in the coverage guide, an EIP-8037 table row and a Tempo CLI help string; its two "Free Tier" hits are third-party RPC providers named in a benchmark table. The repository licence file LICENSE-MIT (raw.githubusercontent.com/foundry-rs/foundry/master/LICENSE-MIT) returns HTTP 200. Deliberately excluded: the docs describe Machine Payments Protocol support for HTTP 402-gated RPC endpoints, which is a paid RPC endpoint (rpc_nodes), not a charge for the framework. Total cost is engineering time plus whatever RPC the team points forks at.Foundry — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDFoundry — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not published
- 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 Foundry: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 83, #1 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 dev_frameworks:foundry:2026.10.18:a4b48562d27b
Are you Foundry? 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.