Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Screeners
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- gmgn.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 59 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
GMGN.AI
Meme-token scanner and trading terminal
Token Screeners
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 token screeners in the published ranking
59
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is GMGN.AI right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones6/10 here; Birdeye scores 8
- Yearly cost including trade fees3/10 here; Birdeye scores 4
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo8/10 here; the category best is 10
- Market coverage and data provenance4/10 here; Birdeye 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 token screener shows where it lands for you.
What will GMGN.AI cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is GMGN.AI?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to GMGN.AI
Compare all 4- 3Birdeye4 points above · stronger on paid placement disclosure (8 against 6)63
- 5Axiom1 point below · stronger on all in cost including execution (4 against 3)58
- 6Photon5 points below · weaker on paid placement disclosure (5 against 6)54
For your setup
Find out if GMGN.AI fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where GMGN.AI 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 token screenerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why GMGN.AI 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 (16.6 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
346+6.536.08#3/7Loading evidence…
283+2.694.010#5/7Loading evidence…
208+5.127.010#3/7Loading evidence…
184+2.306.09#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Birdeye, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 57–61 and ranks #4–#5
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 GMGN.AI’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.
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Birdeye+365#4 → #3
Yearly cost including trade fees 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Birdeye+364#4 → #3
Market coverage and data provenance 4 → 9 on its ladder · passes Birdeye+564#4 → #3
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 5 on its ladder · Axiom passes it−157#4 → #5
Yearly cost including trade fees 3 → 2 on its ladder · Axiom passes it−157#4 → #5
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo 8 → 7 on its ladder · Axiom passes it−157#4 → #5
Smallest climb: how clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones 6 → 9 passes Birdeye, #3.
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
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Yearly cost including trade fees — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Market coverage and data provenance — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Access to GMGN's trading API is rationed by how much you trade - "Access is granted solely based on sufficient Trading Volume on GMGN" - so the programmatic path is not purchasable, only earnable, and the 1% is the toll on earning it. Also note gmgn.ai itself returned HTTP 403 to direct fetches again on 2026-08-06, so every claim here rests on docs.gmgn.ai rather than the live interface. The product is demonstrably live and transacting: DefiLlama recorded $570,880 of GMGN fees in the trailing 24 hours as of that date.
Competitive position
Where GMGN.AI 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 / 712.5 of 30 · best 21.5
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 GMGN.AI leads
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones#3 / 7
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Yearly cost including trade fees#5 / 7
- Market coverage and data provenance#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.
Axiom#5 of 7 · score 58 · 1.0 point behind
GMGN.AI leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo8 vs 7
- Market coverage and data provenance4 vs 3
Axiom leads on
- Yearly cost including trade fees4 vs 3
Largest single reason GMGN.AI is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Axiom has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Birdeye#3 of 7 · score 63 · 4.0 points ahead
GMGN.AI leads on
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo8 vs 5
Birdeye leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones8 vs 6
- Yearly cost including trade fees4 vs 3
- Market coverage and data provenance6 vs 4
Largest single reason Birdeye is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Birdeye has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Photon#6 of 7 · score 54 · 5.0 points behind
GMGN.AI leads on
- How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones6 vs 5
- Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo8 vs 7
- Market coverage and data provenance4 vs 3
Photon leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason GMGN.AI is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Photon has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 59 · gap 23.0Why GeckoTerminal ranks above GMGN.AI
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 23.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGeckoTerminalGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.521.5−23.4, 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 criterionThisGeckoTerminalPoints
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones · w3468−2.18, worse
Yearly cost including trade fees · w28310−6.27, worse
Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo · w2089−0.64, worse
Market coverage and data provenance · w1849−2.88, worse
Net5982−23.0
Your scenario
GMGN.AI 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 28 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 6 August 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 #5 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 6 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral onesstrength 6 · weight 34Report an error—6 August 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.Yearly cost including trade feesstrength 3 · weight 28Report an error—6 August 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.Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demostrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—6 August 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.Market coverage and data provenancestrength 4 · weight 18Report an error—6 August 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 How clearly the sold pixels are separated from the neutral ones · 34% (GMGN.AI 6/10)Scored by Market coverage and data provenance · 18% (GMGN.AI 4/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: 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: Yearly cost including trade fees (28%), Whether the free tier is a usable product or a demo (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "GMGN only charges a 1% handling fee for a single transcation, and there are no additional charges." and "For users who have questions about transaction fees, please first check your priority fee and slippage settings" (re-fetched 28 October 2026 from https://
docs .gmgn .ai /index /gmgn-fees-settings, HTTP 200, matched character-for-character; the typo 'transcation' is in the source; the page footer reads "Last updated 1 year ago"). The page adds that Gas Fee is separate: "the fee that users need to pay to network validators when executing transactions", and that priority and tip fees "are not collected by GMGN". No subscription tier exists anywhere in the documentation index.GMGN.AI — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDGMGN.AI — official pricing page ↗ · 28 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with GMGN.AI: 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
- 6 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 59, #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 screeners:gmgn:2026.10.18:ab2f22d90845
Are you GMGN.AI? 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.