Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Launch Platforms
- Entity
- All 5 Jupiter products
- Official website
- jup.ag
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Jupiter Studio
Jupiter's Solana token launcher
Token Launch Platforms
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 token launch platforms in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Jupiter Studio right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Graduation and LP disposition7/10 here; Clanker scores 9
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers4/10 here; Clanker scores 9
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 launch platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Jupiter Studio cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Jupiter Studio?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Jupiter Studio
Compare all 4- 2Clanker2 points above · stronger on post deploy rug surface (9 against 4)81
- 3Bags1 point above · stronger on post deploy rug surface (6 against 4)80
- 5Heaven1 point below · stronger on post deploy rug surface (5 against 4)78
For your setup
Find out if Jupiter Studio fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Jupiter Studio 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 launch platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Jupiter Studio 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 (23.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
308+7.687.08#1/9Loading evidence…
309+8.648.09#1/9Loading evidence…
257+5.607.09#4/9Loading evidence…
154+1.924.09#5/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Bags, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 77–80 and ranks #3–#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 Jupiter Studio’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.
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Bags+180#4 → #3
Creator control surface and published ranges 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Bags+180#4 → #3
Graduation and LP disposition 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Bags+281#4 → #1
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Bags+280#4 → #3
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 7 on its ladder · Heaven passes it−177#4 → #5
Creator control surface and published ranges 9 → 8 on its ladder · Heaven passes it−177#4 → #5
Graduation and LP disposition 7 → 6 on its ladder · Heaven passes it−177#4 → #5
Smallest climb: unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure 8 → 9 passes Bags, #3.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
- Creator control surface and published ranges — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Graduation and LP disposition — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Two live Jupiter pages give opposite answers to the only question that matters about your liquidity, and neither is dated. The user docs and user FAQ say the graduated LP is gone for good — "All LP tokens from this pool are permanently locked. No one can remove liquidity" — while the developer overview says "LP Locking: Optional 50% of the graduated LP unlocks after 1 year" and the deployed OpenAPI schema documents isLpLocked (default true) as "If enabled, 50% of graduated LP unlocks after 1 year". No version stamp on either, so you cannot tell which contract you are signing until the year is up. Second: your perpetual fee stream is welded to a single key. Fees are claimed by "the wallet you used to launch the token", and Studio publishes no fee-recipient splitting, no basis-point allocation across claimants, and no ownership-transfer field anywhere in its docs or its API schema — lose the deployer wallet and you lose the 50% claim for the life of the token. Third, the same two surfaces disagree on the default preset itself: the developer page's Meme preset is a 16,000 → 69,000 market cap raising "~17.94K USDC", while the user docs' Meme mode is 5,000 → 75,000 raising "~15,390 USDC". And the price of creating the token — the one number you need before you sign anything — is published on none of the seven documentation pages, is absent from the 31 readable characters that studio.jup.ag/launch serves, and the Zendesk article that once covered it now 301s to a support hub with no Studio section at all.
Competitive position
Where Jupiter Studio 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 / 914.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#4 / 917.9 of 30 · best 18.8
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Jupiter Studio leads
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure#1 / 9
- Creator control surface and published ranges#1 / 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.
Bags#3 of 9 · score 80 · 1.0 point ahead
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Bags leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition8 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers6 vs 4
Largest single reason Bags is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Bags has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Heaven#5 of 9 · score 78 · 1.0 point behind
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Heaven leads on
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers5 vs 4
Largest single reason Jupiter Studio is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Heaven has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Clanker#2 of 9 · score 81 · 2.0 points ahead
Jupiter Studio leads on
- Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure8 vs 6
- Creator control surface and published ranges9 vs 8
Clanker leads on
- Graduation and LP disposition9 vs 7
- Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers9 vs 4
Largest single reason Clanker is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Clanker has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 79 · gap 2.0Why Raydium LaunchLab ranks above Jupiter Studio
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 2.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRaydium LaunchLabGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.918.8−2.3, 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 criterionThisRaydium LaunchLabPoints
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure · w3087+0.96, better
Graduation and LP disposition · w2578−0.80, worse
Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · w1547−1.44, worse
Net7981−2.0
Your scenario
Jupiter Studio is not priced for this scenario
Trading fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 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 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 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 #3 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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosurestrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Creator control surface and published rangesstrength 9 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Graduation and LP dispositionstrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—30 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.Post-deploy rug surface and admin powersstrength 4 · weight 15Report an error—30 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
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Creator control surface and published ranges · 30% (Jupiter Studio 9/10)Scored by Post-deploy rug surface and admin powers · 15% (Jupiter Studio 4/10)
- Custody failure (Jupiter Studio 7/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Graduation and LP disposition · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, 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: Unavoidable protocol fee and fee disclosure (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- From https://
docs .jup .ag /user-docs /launch /studio /graduation-and-fees .md (HTTP 200, 4,066 bytes, fetched 30 September 2026; same size and text as the 27 August 2026 read): "A 1% fee is charged on every buy and sell transaction throughout the entire lifetime of the token. This applies both on the bonding curve (before graduation) and on the Meteora DAMMv2 pool (after graduation)." Split, same page: "50% to the creator." and "50% to Jupiter.", followed by "This fee structure does not change after graduation." Anti-sniper add-on, same page: "During the anti-sniper window (first 15 to 60 seconds after launch), an additional fee is charged on top of the 1% trading fee. This fee starts at 99% and decays to 0%." and "The anti-sniper fee goes entirely to the creator." Graduation threshold, same page: "The minimum amount raised to graduate is 15,000 USDC (or equivalent in SOL)." Not on this page: the Studio API schema at developers.jup.ag/docs/openapi-spec/studio/studio.yaml (HTTP 200, version 2.0.0, re-read 30 September 2026) still enumerates the fee field as 100 or 200 basis points with 100 as default, so a 2% rate exists in the machine schema that the user docs never mention. No cost to create a token is published on any of the seven Studio documentation pages re-read on 30 September 2026, and studio.jup.ag/launch (HTTP 200) is a script shell with no readable fee text.Jupiter Studio — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDJupiter Studio — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 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
Legal entity on file: Jupiter, placed in 5 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Jupiter Studio: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #4 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 token_launch_platforms:jupiter_studio:2026.10.18:f28b4b445d40
Are you Jupiter Studio? 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.