The score, by dimension
- the same for all 7
- #2 of 7 · best 17.8
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
KeeperHub
Hosted onchain workflow runner
#2 of all 7 worldwide69
- Rank
- #2 of all 7 worldwidere-runs: scores 68–71 and ranks #2–#3
- Your cost
- Not priced on this basis
- Evidence
- High4 of 4 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read September 2026checked · re-read due
Check availability for your country
KeeperHub · keeperhub.com. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
The verdict
KeeperHub is #2 of 7 published automation & keepers; it scores 7/10 on published lateness bound, where the category best is 9. Its widest gap is survives the vendor: 6/10, where Keep3r Network scores 9. Choose Keep3r Network if survives the vendor matters most.
Is KeeperHub right for you?
Look elsewhere if
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published6/10 here; Keep3r Network scores 9
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6/10 here; Reactive Network scores 8
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet4/10 here; Reactive Network scores 7
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute7/10 here; DeFi Saver Automation 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 automation network shows where it lands for you.
What will KeeperHub cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is KeeperHub?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Entity: not verified. No hand-confirmed record on file ties KeeperHub to the company that runs it, so this page cannot say which other products that company operates. Read the legal entity in its terms before you deposit. How we read the evidence
Open the evidenceIf it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 3Reactive NetworkIf visibility of the non event matters most: 71 point below · stronger on visibility of the non event (7 against 4)68
- 4DeFi Saver AutomationIf published lateness bound matters most: 93 points below · stronger on published lateness bound (9 against 7)66
- 5Keep3r NetworkIf survives the vendor matters most: 94 points below · stronger on survives the vendor (9 against 6)65
Provider at a glance
- Category
- Automation & Keepers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- keeperhub.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 69 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in September 2026.
For your setup
Find out if KeeperHub fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where KeeperHub 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 automation networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why KeeperHub ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.2 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
286+5.386.08#3/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28306+5.764.09#3/7
Third party
Third party · read 2026-09-28244+3.075.07#5/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28187+4.036.09#3/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−11behind TukTuk (Helium), #1 of all 7 worldwide, on the published score
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–71 and ranks #2–#3
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 KeeperHub’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.
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 6 → 5 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−168#2 → #3
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 6 → 4 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−266#2 → #4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 4 → 2 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−266#2 → #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
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- READ THIS FIRST: the SLA is the one thing KeeperHub sells that its rivals mostly do not, and it does not survive contact with the vendor's own pages. It is "—" on both tiers below $299/mo (keeperhub.com/pricing), so most buyers purchase no bound at all; where it exists at 99.9%, KeeperHub's own status page showed Workflow Scheduler and Workflow Engine at 99.54% over the trailing 90 days when read on 2026-08-14, with eighteen incidents of impact "major" all titled "Workflow execution degraded" in the published feed, and on 2026-09-28 showed both at 99.3% over 90 days (98.83% over 30), with ten further major "Workflow execution degraded" incidents since 2026-08-14, the latest on 2026-09-02; and docs.keeperhub.com/guides/gelato-migration simultaneously advertises "**Uptime guarantee** | 100% uptime track record (7+ years)", a figure belonging to the team's prior work (keeperhub.com/enterprise: "Same team that has run Web3 automation infrastructure for 7+ years") and not to a product whose status history begins 2026-04-08. Behind all of it there is NO terms of service at any URL — /terms, /terms-of-service, /tos, /legal and /terms-and-conditions are all 404 — so the SLA percentage has no published contract underneath it, and the product still self-labels BETA in its own navigation. Three further corrections carried forward from re-verification. (1) The pool brief overcounts triggers: it lists six including "Transfer", but "Transfer Funds" is an Action node, and three vendor pages agree on five (docs.keeperhub.com/keepers/overview, /concepts and llms.txt: "a **trigger** (Manual, Schedule, Webhook, Event, Block)"). Scored as five. (2) The pool brief's retry quote — "When a step fails, KeeperHub retries with configurable behavior. Failed runs are logged with full error context." — appears on no KeeperHub page; grepping all 172 documentation source files returns zero hits for "retries with configurable" or "full error context". What the vendor actually publishes is "Failed steps are retried with exponential backoff" (FAQ) and "up to 10 attempts" (gelato-migration guide); retry is nowhere documented as configurable. (3) The open-source claim is not self-consistent: keeperhub.com says "Fully open source", the README says "Apache 2.0", the LICENSE file carries the Apache-2.0 grant under an unedited "Copyright 2025 Vercel, Inc." line (hence GitHub's NOASSERTION), and the vendor's own migration guide calls it "License | Commercial (open-source core)". The self-rescue path is real, up to a point: the repository publishes KeeperHub's actual production Kubernetes values, RBAC and NetworkPolicies — but the Helm chart those values render against is not in the repository and every image points at a private ECR, so standing the crank back up means rebuilding from the Dockerfile, not running what is published.
Competitive position
How KeeperHub places on each criterion
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.
Against the leader
80 vs 69 · gap 11.0Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above KeeperHub
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.
DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.717.8−10.7, 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 criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2868−1.79, worse
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3068−1.92, worse
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · w2447−2.30, worse
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1876+0.58, better
Net6980−11.0
Your scenario
KeeperHub 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 · USDTypical costNot statedFewer than 5 priced rows: no typical cost is named · 0 of 7 rows priced
Lowest fee, priced rowsNone 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 typical, 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #3 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 10 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was truestrength 6 · weight 28Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 6 · weight 30Report an errorThird-party page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 4 · weight 24Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 7 · weight 18Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (KeeperHub 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · 28%
- Liveness failure (KeeperHub 4/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · 24%
- Execution failure (KeeperHub 7/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · 18%
- Exit failure (KeeperHub 6/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · 30%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fetched 28 September 2026 from https://
keeperhub .com /pricing; every figure is unchanged since 14 August 2026. Pay per execution: "$0.01", "Free to start. No commitments.", Executions "5,000", Gas credits "$1". Pro: "$49 /mo", "$39/mo billed annually", Executions "25,000", Gas credits "$5", "$2/1K additional executions". Business: "$299 /mo", "$239/mo billed annually", Executions "250,000", Gas credits "$25", "$1.50/1K additional executions". Enterprise: "Custom", "Custom everything", "Custom overage terms". Comparison table rows as printed (pipes mark cells): Per extra execution | $0.01 | $0.0020 | $0.0015 | Custom; Sponsored gas | $1/mo | $5/mo +$4/mo | $25/mo +$24/mo | Custom; Triggers | Standard | Advanced | Advanced + Custom | Custom; Logs | 7 days | 30 days | 90 days | Custom; SLA | — | — | 99.9% | 99.999%. Unit definition: "One workflow run equals one execution, whether it reads a contract state or writes a transaction. All operations count the same way. Simple, predictable metering." Overage on the free tier: "On the Free plan, you can enable pay-as-you-go to keep running at $0.01 per additional execution, or upgrade to a paid tier at any time." The August x402 observation of a 0.01 USDC per-call price on one marketplace workflow was not re-checked and is dropped from the note. Price is recorded as disclosure and ranks in no criterion on this page.KeeperHub — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDKeeperHub — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum One, Optimism, Polygon, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Plasma, Tempo, 0G, Solana
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Re-checked 14 August 2026. No geographic restriction is stated on any KeeperHub page read. Self-serve signup at app.keeperhub.com with no country gate described; keeperhub.com/pricing states "Start with the free tier. No credit card, no commitments." The privacy policy at keeperhub.com/privacy ("Last updated March 2026") addresses both European and US users directly, with "10 GDPR Compliance / European Economic Area — EEA residents have additional rights under the GDPR" and a separate "11 CCPA Compliance / California" section — positive evidence of intended service on both sides of the Atlantic. IMPORTANT CAVEAT on the confidence of "global": there is no terms of service to restrict anything. keeperhub.com/terms, /terms-of-service, /tos, /legal and /terms-and-conditions all returned HTTP 404 on 14 August 2026, and the privacy policy is the only legal document published. So "unrestricted" rests on the absence of any published restriction rather than on an affirmative availability statement, and no sanctions, export-control or prohibited-jurisdiction clause exists anywhere to read. The address sales@keeperhub.io appears only once, in docs.keeperhub.com/llms.txt under "## Optional — [Contact](mailto:sales@keeperhub.io)". The addresses a buyer actually meets are human@keeperhub.com (site-wide footer and schema.org contactPoint on every keeperhub.com page) and support@keeperhub.com (privacy policy §08 and §14). Note the vendor operates both keeperhub.com and keeperhub.io — the CLI docs reference "staging.keeperhub.io". No corporate registration, registered office or operating entity is disclosed on any page read; the schema.org block gives only "foundingDate":"2025". None is asserted here.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with KeeperHub: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.11.1Score 69, #2 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 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt automation_keepers:keeperhub:2026.11.1:89ccfa60e9be
Are you KeeperHub? 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.