Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- laevitas.ch
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 75 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Laevitas
Options and futures research from Singapore
Trading Tools
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 trading tools in the published ranking
75
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Laevitas right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7/10; the category best is 8
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?8/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?4/10 here; CoinGlass 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 crypto trading tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Laevitas cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Laevitas?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Laevitas
Compare all 4- 2CryptoQuant1 point above · stronger on what the affordable tier refuses (6 against 4)76
- 3CoinGlass1 point above · stronger on what the affordable tier refuses (9 against 4)76
- 5Velo6 points below · stronger on derivation you can reproduce (8 against 7)69
For your setup
Find out if Laevitas fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Laevitas 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 toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Laevitas 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 (21.5 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
327+7.177.08#2/7Loading evidence…
268+6.668.08#1/7Loading evidence…
244+3.076.09#6/7Loading evidence…
188+4.615.08#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind CoinGlass, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 73–77 and ranks #2–#4
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 Laevitas’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.
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes CoinGlass+177#4 → #2
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes CoinGlass+176#4 → #3
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes CoinGlass+176#4 → #3
When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes CoinGlass+176#4 → #3
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? 7 → 4 on its ladder · Velo passes it−369#4 → #5
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? 8 → 4 on its ladder · Velo passes it−468#4 → #5
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? 4 → 0 on its ladder · Velo passes it−469#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?” 7 → 8 passes CoinGlass, #3.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? — 8/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You will pay $50/mo per seat for a tool whose entire value is historical context and get exactly one year of it — on a page that advertises '5+ Years Historical Data' three screens above the tier table. The 365D tenor Laevitas itself documents on its volatility cone is unbacktestable on the tier a working analyst actually buys, and the first tier that unlocks 'API historical data' costs 10x more and starts with a sales call.
Competitive position
Where Laevitas 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 / 716.1 of 30 · best 18.6
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 Laevitas leads
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?#2 / 7
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?#1 / 7
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?#1 / 7
Where it trails
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?#6 / 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.
CoinGlass#3 of 7 · score 76 · 1.0 point ahead
Laevitas leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7 vs 6
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 4
CoinGlass leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9 vs 4
Largest single reason CoinGlass is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGlass has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CryptoQuant#2 of 7 · score 76 · 1.0 point ahead
Laevitas leads on
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 7
CryptoQuant leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6 vs 4
Largest single reason CryptoQuant is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: CryptoQuant has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Velo#5 of 7 · score 69 · 6.0 points behind
Laevitas leads on
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 1
Velo leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?8 vs 7
Largest single reason Laevitas is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Velo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 75 · gap 6.0Why TradingView ranks above Laevitas
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 6.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTradingViewGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.118.6−6.5, 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 criterionThisTradingViewPoints
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? · w2449−3.84, worse
When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · w1887+0.58, better
Net7581−6.0
Your scenario
Laevitas is not priced for this scenario
Taker fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are 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
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputTrading
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #4 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?strength 7 · weight 32Report 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.Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?strength 8 · weight 26Report 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.What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?strength 4 · weight 24Report 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.When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?strength 8 · weight 18Report 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? · 32% (Laevitas 7/10)Scored by Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? · 26% (Laevitas 8/10)Scored by When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · 18% (Laevitas 8/10)
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: What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Read on https://
www .laevitas .ch /plans on 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200). "Free" "$0 /mo" — "1 week historical data", "Basic charting (8 per page)", "Try core features". "Popular" "Premium" "$50 /mo per seat" — "3 custom dashboards", "1 year historical data", "Unlimited charting", "Full toolkit access", "Advanced filtering", "CSV exports". "Enterprise" "$500 /mo per seat" — "Unlimited dashboards", "API historical data", "All premium features", "Priority Support" (CTA "Contact Sales"). "Custom Enterprise" "Custom" — "Tailored data solutions", "High-throughput API", "Dedicated manager", "Custom integrations" (CTA "Contact Us"). Separately, on https:// apiv2 .laevitas .ch /x402 (read 28 September 2026, HTTP 200, still marked "Beta" and not referenced by the /plans price table): "Our API charges $0.001 per request." and "You pay once for a bundle of 100 API calls ($0.10 in USDC), and the server credits your wallet with 99 prepaid requests." Terms of Service (https:// www .laevitas .ch /TermsOfService, "Last updated: 01 July 2024"): "All fees are on a pre-paid basis. To the extent permitted by the applicable law, payments are non-refundable and we do not provide refunds or credits for any unused membership periods."Laevitas — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDLaevitas — official pricing page ↗ · 28 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
- NO market restriction and, unusually, NO OFAC/sanctions representation either. The full Terms of Service at https://
www .laevitas .ch /TermsOfService were read on 17 August 2026 (HTTP 200, "Last updated: 01 July 2024"): a case-insensitive search for "sanction", "OFAC", "embargo", "denied person" and "restricted person" returned ZERO matches — this ToS does not carry the standard crypto sanctions clause at all. The only geographic language is a SUITABILITY DISCLAIMER, not a footprint and not an eligibility rule: "9.1 Nothing herein shall be construed as a representation by the Company that the information and materials contained in or accessed through this Website and/or the API is appropriate or available for use in geographic areas or jurisdictions other than Singapore." That is a liability disclaimer by a Singapore-domiciled vendor — "operated by Laevitas Pte. Ltd." — paired with "9.2 These Terms and your use of the Website, the API and/or the Services shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of Singapore. You agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts." It restricts no country, blocks no user and names no prohibited jurisdiction. Classified as global.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Laevitas: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 75, #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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt trading_tools:laevitas:2026.10.18:fe3bbc501d8a
Are you Laevitas? 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.