Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- materialindicators.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 61 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Material Indicators
Order-book heat map subscription
Trading Tools
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 trading tools in the published ranking
61
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Material Indicators right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?5/10 here; Velo scores 8
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?5/10 here; Laevitas scores 8
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6/10 here; the category best is 9
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?1/10 here; Laevitas scores 8
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 Material Indicators cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Material Indicators?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Material Indicators
Compare all 4- 4Laevitas14 points above · stronger on when yesterdays number changes (8 against 1)75
- 5Velo8 points above · stronger on derivation you can reproduce (8 against 5)69
- 6Hyblock Capital6 points above · stronger on when yesterdays number changes (5 against 1)67
For your setup
Find out if Material Indicators fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Material Indicators 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 Material Indicators ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (14.5 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
325+5.127.08#7/7Loading evidence…
265+4.168.08#7/7Loading evidence…
246+4.616.09#3/7Loading evidence…
181+0.585.08#6/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind Hyblock Capital, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 59–63 and stays #7
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 Material Indicators’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? 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Hyblock Capital+469#7 → #5
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Hyblock Capital+569#7 → #5
When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? 1 → 7 on its ladder · passes Hyblock Capital+667#7 → #6
Smallest climb: “If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?” 5 → 9 passes Hyblock Capital, #6.
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
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? — 1/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- You are paying $149.99–$199.99 a month for a single-exchange product that never tells you it is single-exchange on any page you would actually read before buying. The only statement of the venue set — 'FireCharts currently supports all BTC and USDT pairs on Binance.' — is in a blog post dated May 2, 2022; the live /firecharts/ product page and the /buy-now/ tier table name no exchange at all, and the MI Dashboard's 'MarketWide' and 'across the crypto market' aggregates name no constituent set anywhere. Add that there is no API, no export row, no history-depth row, no seat count and no commercial-use row in the tier table, that the terms separately forbid using a personal licence commercially and forbid automated collection, and that the indicators ship as TradingView Invite-Only Scripts you cannot read — and the number on your screen is one you cannot reproduce, cannot extract, and cannot source to a named venue set in front of a risk committee.
Competitive position
Where Material Indicators 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#7 / 710.8 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 Material Indicators leads
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?#3 / 7
Where it trails
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?#7 / 7
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?#7 / 7
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?#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.
Hyblock Capital#6 of 7 · score 67 · 6.0 points ahead
Material Indicators leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6 vs 5
Hyblock Capital leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?6 vs 5
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?6 vs 5
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?5 vs 1
Largest single reason Hyblock Capital is ahead: published criteria (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Hyblock Capital has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Velo#5 of 7 · score 69 · 8.0 points ahead
Material Indicators leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6 vs 4
Velo leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?8 vs 5
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?8 vs 5
Largest single reason Velo is ahead: published criteria (+8.1 display points).Scenario cost: Velo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Laevitas#4 of 7 · score 75 · 14.0 points ahead
Material Indicators leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?6 vs 4
Laevitas leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7 vs 5
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?8 vs 5
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 1
Largest single reason Laevitas is ahead: published criteria (+13.8 display points).Scenario cost: Laevitas has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 61 · gap 20.0Why TradingView ranks above Material Indicators
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 20.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTradingViewGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.818.6−20.3, 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 criterionThisTradingViewPoints
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? · w3257−2.05, worse
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? · w2658−2.50, worse
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? · w2469−2.30, worse
When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · w1817−3.46, worse
Net6181−20.0
Your scenario
Material Indicators 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 across every one-point re-run
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 5 · 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 5 · 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 6 · 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 1 · 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% (Material Indicators 5/10)Scored by Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? · 26% (Material Indicators 5/10)Scored by When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · 18% (Material Indicators 1/10)
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://
materialindicators .com /buy-now / on 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200). Rendered: "PREMIUM+" "$199.99" "/ month" "Billed monthly." and "STANDARD" "$149.99" "/ month" "Billed monthly.", each with "14-day money-back guarantee". Annual and Lifetime prices are served in the page's inline pricingData object and rendered by the Monthly/Annual/Lifetime switcher: premium annual "$1,997" "/ year", note "Save $402.88" per year, "Equivalent to $166.42/month."; premium lifetime "$8,499" "one-time", "Includes updates and new product releases for life."; standard annual "$1,497" "/ year", note "Save $302.88" per year, "Equivalent to $124.75/month."; standard lifetime "$6,499" "one-time", "Includes updates and upgrades for life." The same object flags premium monthly "communityIncluded: false" against "communityIncluded: true" on annual and lifetime, so PREMIUM+ bought monthly excludes the private Telegram community. No free tier and no trial is offered on the page; the refund guarantee is the only trial mechanism ("Every subscription comes with a 14-day money-back guarantee.").Material Indicators — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDMaterial Indicators — 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 GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTION AND — unusually — NO SANCTIONS REPRESENTATION EITHER. Searching https://
materialindicators .com /terms-of-service-and-privacy-policy / (read 17 August 2026) for 'OFAC', 'sanction', 'embargo', 'export control', 'residents of', 'not available in' and 'prohibited jurisdiction' returned ZERO matches. This is neither a market restriction nor the standard OFAC/sanctions eligibility clause that most crypto ToS carry: the document simply contains no geographic eligibility language of any kind. The only jurisdictional text is choice of law and venue, not a footprint: 'shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware in all matters. Jurisdiction for any claims arising under these Terms shall lie exclusively with the state or federal courts within Miami, Florida.' and 'you agree to submit to personal jurisdiction in Miami, Fl. for all purposes'. The only conduct limit is generic: 'The Site is intended to be used only for lawful purposes.' Scored global. Practical caveat, not a legal one: access requires a Telegram account and a TradingView account (https:// materialindicators .com /faqs /, 2026-08-17: 'Do I need a Telegram account? In short, yes. Our team, our community and our alerts live on Telegram.'), so availability tracks those two services' own country rules rather than the vendor's.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Material Indicators: 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 61, #7 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:material_indicators:2026.10.18:fe3bbc501d8a
Are you Material Indicators? 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.