Provider at a glance
- Category
- Sentiment Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- lunarcrush.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
LunarCrush
Social data aggregation and API
Sentiment Analytics
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 8 sentiment analytics in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is LunarCrush right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published predictive evidence8/10, the category best
- Documented bot filtering7/10, the category best
- Source and asset coverage8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published price and free-tier substance5/10 here; Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me) scores 10
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 sentiment analytics tool shows where it lands for you.
What will LunarCrush cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is LunarCrush?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to LunarCrush
Compare all 4- 2Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)1 point below · stronger on published price and what free survives (9 against 5)79
- 3The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)19 points below · weaker on published predictive evidence (4 against 8)61
- 4Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)20 points below · stronger on published price and what free survives (10 against 5)60
For your setup
Find out if LunarCrush fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where LunarCrush 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 sentiment analytics toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why LunarCrush 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 (22.4 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+7.683.08#1/8Loading evidence…
255+4.005.010#4/8Loading evidence…
257+5.605.07#1/8Loading evidence…
208+5.123.59#2/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+1over Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–80 and ranks #1–#2
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 LunarCrush’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.
Published predictive evidence 8 → 7 on its ladder · Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) passes it−179#1 → #2
Published price and free-tier substance 5 → 4 on its ladder · Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) passes it−180#1 → #2
Documented bot filtering 7 → 6 on its ladder · Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) passes it−180#1 → #2
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published predictive evidence — 8/10, the category best
- Documented bot filtering — 7/10, the category best
- Source and asset coverage — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published price and free-tier substance — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The one reproducible test in this pool is on 2,898 US equity earnings prints in 2026 H1, not on crypto, and the effect that actually reproduces from the public file is about 1.19x top-versus-bottom decile. The vendor's own companion file discloses that the louder figures on the Atlas web page - "~1.2–1.4×", "+1.79σ print-day average", "1,665 liquid prints", "29.7% of liquid prints build more than 1σ of attention before the number is public" - are computed on an internal panel using a dollar-volume liquidity cut "which is not included in this public file", and warns to "Expect directionally identical but numerically different results". So the headline a buyer sees is not the number he can check; the number he can check is smaller. The page also routes the tradeable version - hourly feed, point-in-time constituent membership, 5+ years of history - to a two-week institutional trial arranged with the CEO by email. A crypto buyer is extrapolating an equities result across an asset class, a frequency and a price tier none of which were tested in public.
Competitive position
Where LunarCrush 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 816.8 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where LunarCrush leads
- Published predictive evidence#1 / 8
- Documented bot filtering#1 / 8
- Source and asset coverage#2 / 8
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.
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)#2 of 8 · score 79 · 1.0 point behind
LunarCrush leads on
- Published predictive evidence8 vs 5
- Documented bot filtering7 vs 5
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) leads on
- Published price and free-tier substance9 vs 5
- Source and asset coverage9 vs 8
Largest single reason LunarCrush is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)#3 of 8 · score 61 · 19.0 points behind
LunarCrush leads on
- Published predictive evidence8 vs 4
- Published price and free-tier substance5 vs 1
- Documented bot filtering7 vs 6
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason LunarCrush is ahead: published criteria (+19.0 display points).Scenario cost: The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)#4 of 8 · score 60 · 20.0 points behind
LunarCrush leads on
- Published predictive evidence8 vs 3
- Documented bot filtering7 vs 1
- Source and asset coverage8 vs 1
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me) leads on
- Published price and free-tier substance10 vs 5
Largest single reason LunarCrush is ahead: published criteria (+19.8 display points).Scenario cost: Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
80 vs 79 · gap 1.0Why LunarCrush ranks above Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)
DimensionThisSantiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.816.3+1.3, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisSantiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)Points
Published predictive evidence · w3085+2.88, better
Published price and free-tier substance · w2559−3.20, worse
Documented bot filtering · w2575+1.60, better
Source and asset coverage · w2089−0.64, worse
Net8079+1.0
Your scenario
LunarCrush 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 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 7 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 #1 to #2 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 7 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published predictive evidencestrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—7 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.Published price and free-tier substancestrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—7 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.Documented bot filteringstrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—7 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.Source and asset coveragestrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—7 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 Published predictive evidence · 30% (LunarCrush 8/10)Scored by Documented bot filtering · 25% (LunarCrush 7/10)
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: Published price and free-tier substance (25%), Source and asset coverage (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fetched 27 September 2026 from https://
lunarcrush .com /pricing, which now publishes every paid plan with its billing period: the plan cards are prerendered into the HTML for non-browser clients and drawn by script in a browser, and the page's embedded offer data carries the same figures (on 7 August 2026 the page carried no price and the figures existed only inside a JavaScript bundle). Individual "$90/month" or "$72/month billed annually"; Builder "$300/month" or "$240/month billed annually"; Scale "$900/month" or "$720/month billed annually"; Enterprise "Custom Pricing". The page title reads "LunarCrush Pricing — Individual $90/mo, Builder $300/mo, Scale $900/mo". The page also sells day passes: its embedded offer data lists "Individual Daily", "Builder Daily" and "Scale Daily" offers with "billingDuration":"P1D" (Individual "price":"5"), and in a browser the plan cards open on a Daily/Monthly/Annual toggle. FAQ on the same page: "Payments are final and non-refundable." No free plan card is rendered on the pricing page; the vendor's support answer at https:// lunarcrush .com /support /how-much-does-lunarcrush-cost says plans start with a free Discover tier. Worked example (ChainChoice arithmetic, not a page figure): Individual billed annually is 72 x 12 = 864 dollars a year, against 90 x 12 = 1,080 dollars billed monthly, a 20 percent annual discount.LunarCrush — official page at lunarcrush.com ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDLunarCrush — official page at lunarcrush.com ↗ · 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 LunarCrush: 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
- 7 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #1 of 8. 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 sentiment_analytics:lunarcrush:2026.10.18:68454499df99
Are you LunarCrush? 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.