Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Bots
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- freqtrade.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 84 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Freqtrade
Open-source Python trading bot
Trading Bots
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 9 trading bots in the published ranking
84
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
- $0.00 your total cost
Is Freqtrade right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Key custody posture10/10, the category best
- True cost of operation10/10, the category best
- Strategy capability10/10, the category best
- Operational reliability6/10; the category best is 7
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 crypto trading bot shows where it lands for you.
What will Freqtrade cost you?
$0.00 your total cost
- Months you run it
- 12 months
- Monthly plan
- $0
$240 below the median of 7 priced trading bots.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Freqtrade?
- Evidence: unknown4 of 4 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Freqtrade
Compare all 4- 2Pionex16 points below · weaker on custody (3 against 10)68
- 3Cryptohopper17 points below · weaker on custody (5 against 10)67$348
- 4Bitsgap21 points below · stronger on reliability (7 against 6)63$348
For your setup
Find out if Freqtrade fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Freqtrade 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 crypto trading botNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Freqtrade 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 (29.4 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+9.605.010#1/9Loading evidence…
2610+8.326.010#1/9Loading evidence…
2410+7.686.010#1/9Loading evidence…
206+3.846.07#2/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+16over Pionex, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 84 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Freqtrade’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.
Key custody posture 10 → 1 on its ladder · Pionex passes it−980#1 → #3
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Key custody posture — 10/10, the category best
- True cost of operation — 10/10, the category best
- Strategy capability — 10/10, the category best
- Operational reliability — 6/10, category best 7/10
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
- No company behind it — no support desk, no SLA, nobody to reimburse a strategy bug
- Requires genuine Python competence plus a hardened VPS; a compromised host equals compromised keys
- GPL-3.0 copyleft applies if you distribute a modified version
Competitive position
Where Freqtrade 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 / 920.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#1 / 922.1 of 30 · pool best
Friction#8 / 90.7 of 10 · best 6.7
Trust record#2 / 93.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · pool best
Where Freqtrade leads
- Key custody posture#1 / 9
- True cost of operation#1 / 9
- Strategy capability#1 / 9
- Operational reliability#2 / 9
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.
Pionex#2 of 9 · score 68 · 16.0 points behind
Freqtrade leads on
- Key custody posture10 vs 3
- True cost of operation10 vs 4
- Strategy capability10 vs 4
Pionex leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Freqtrade is ahead: published criteria (+32.0 display points).Scenario cost: Pionex has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Cryptohopper#3 of 9 · score 67 · 17.0 points behind
Freqtrade leads on
- Key custody posture10 vs 5
- True cost of operation10 vs 6
- Strategy capability10 vs 6
Cryptohopper leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Freqtrade is ahead: published criteria (+21.8 display points).Scenario cost: Cryptohopper is +$348 against Freqtrade.
Bitsgap#4 of 9 · score 63 · 21.0 points behind
Freqtrade leads on
- Key custody posture10 vs 4
- True cost of operation10 vs 6
- Strategy capability10 vs 6
Bitsgap leads on
- Operational reliability7 vs 6
Largest single reason Freqtrade is ahead: published criteria (+22.6 display points).Scenario cost: Bitsgap is +$348 against Freqtrade.
Against #2
84 vs 68 · gap 16.0Why Freqtrade ranks above Pionex
DimensionThisPionexGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight22.19.8+32.0, better
Friction · 12% weight0.76.7−15.6, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight8.38.3same
Published criterionThisPionexPoints
Key custody posture · w30103+6.72, better
True cost of operation · w26104+4.99, better
Strategy capability · w24104+4.61, better
Net8468+16.0
Your scenario
What Freqtrade costs on your scenario
The published monthly plan times the months you run it. Excludes the exchange fees on the bot's own orders and any profit share. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your total cost · default scenario — set your own
Months you run it · your input12 months
Monthly plan · published rate$0
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 September 2026.
your total costCost is stated as your total cost in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$2407 of 9 rows priced · Freqtrade −$240 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · FreqtradeFreqtrade is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
2 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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 evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsReading…category publishes no receipt file
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
9 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Key custody posturestrength 10 · weight 30Report an error——
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.True cost of operationstrength 10 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Strategy capabilitystrength 10 · weight 24Report an error——
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.Operational reliabilitystrength 6 · weight 20Report an error——
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
- Liveness failure (Freqtrade 6/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Operational reliability · 20%
- Custody failure (Freqtrade 10/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Key custody posture · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Execution 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: True cost of operation (26%), Strategy capability (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Free and open source under GPL-3.0: no subscription, commission or licence key, and the FAQ states Freqtrade has no crypto token. Real total cost: a machine running 24/7 (the docs recommend a Linux cloud instance with at least 2GB RAM, 1GB disk and 2 vCPU), exchange trading fees, and the Python competence to build and maintain a strategy. Re-read 14 September 2026.Freqtrade documentation ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDFreqtrade documentation ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Exchange-side via CCXT: Binance, Kraken, OKX, Bybit, Gate, Bitget, HTX, Hyperliquid and more; futures on major venues
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global self-hosters, Python-native quant hobbyists and professionals
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Self-hosted only; no hosted edition exists. Which venues you may legally use is your exchange’s restriction, not Freqtrade’s.
- Availability note
- Software, not a service — no jurisdiction gating and no MiCA exposure; exchange access rules still apply to you.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Freqtrade: 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
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 84, #1 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 trading_bots:freqtrade:2026.10.18:0cbf2bfa4041
Are you Freqtrade? 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.