Provider at a glance
- Category
- DeFi Dashboards
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- nansen.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 52 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Nansen Portfolio
Onchain analytics with wallet labels
DeFi Dashboards
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 8 DeFi dashboards in the published ranking
52
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Nansen Portfolio right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Valuation Auditability2/10 here; Portals (Explorer) scores 3
- Custody & Address Exposure2/10 here; Portals (Explorer) scores 6
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity5/10 here; DeBank scores 7
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity6/10 here; the category best is 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: Singapore.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best DeFi dashboard shows where it lands for you.
What will Nansen Portfolio cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Nansen Portfolio?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Nansen Portfolio
Compare all 4- 5Portals (Explorer)6 points above · stronger on custody and data exposure (6 against 2)58
- 6DeBank5 points above · stronger on custody and data exposure (4 against 2)57
- 8CoinStats3 points below · stronger on valuation auditability (3 against 2)49
For your setup
Find out if Nansen Portfolio fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Nansen Portfolio 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 DeFi dashboardNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Nansen Portfolio 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 (11.4 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
302+1.923.010#7/8Loading evidence…
252+1.603.510#7/8Loading evidence…
255+4.005.07#4/8Loading evidence…
206+3.846.09#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind DeBank, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 50–54 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 Nansen Portfolio’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.
Valuation Auditability 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes DeBank+358#7 → #5
Custody & Address Exposure 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes DeBank+458#7 → #5
Long-Tail & LP Fidelity 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes DeBank+458#7 → #5
Valuation Auditability 2 → 0 on its ladder · CoinStats passes it−249#7 → #8
Custody & Address Exposure 2 → 0 on its ladder · CoinStats passes it−249#7 → #8
Long-Tail & LP Fidelity 5 → 3 on its ladder · CoinStats passes it−249#7 → #8
Smallest climb: valuation Auditability 2 → 5 passes DeBank, #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
- Valuation Auditability — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Custody & Address Exposure — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying an analytics platform and receiving a portfolio tracker as a by-product. The portfolio is the 2022 Ape Board acquisition folded into a much larger product, and nansen.ai/pricing itself returns 404 — the real price lives in a help-centre article, with the live plan picker behind a login. If portfolio valuation is your actual requirement, you are paying for smart-money labels you may never use.
Competitive position
Where Nansen Portfolio 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#7 / 88.5 of 30 · best 19.6
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 Nansen Portfolio leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Valuation Auditability#7 / 8
- Custody & Address Exposure#7 / 8
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.
CoinStats#8 of 8 · score 49 · 3.0 points behind
Nansen Portfolio leads on
- Custody & Address Exposure2 vs 1
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity5 vs 3
CoinStats leads on
- Valuation Auditability3 vs 2
Largest single reason Nansen Portfolio is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: CoinStats has no verified pricing for this scenario.
DeBank#6 of 8 · score 57 · 5.0 points ahead
Nansen Portfolio leads on
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity6 vs 5
DeBank leads on
- Custody & Address Exposure4 vs 2
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity7 vs 5
Largest single reason DeBank is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: DeBank has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Portals (Explorer)#5 of 8 · score 58 · 6.0 points ahead
Nansen Portfolio leads on
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity6 vs 4
Portals (Explorer) leads on
- Valuation Auditability3 vs 2
- Custody & Address Exposure6 vs 2
Largest single reason Portals (Explorer) is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Portals (Explorer) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 52 · gap 29.0Why Rotki ranks above Nansen Portfolio
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 29.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRotkiGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.519.6−28.9, 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 criterionThisRotkiPoints
Valuation Auditability · w30210−7.68, worse
Custody & Address Exposure · w25210−6.40, worse
Pricing Transparency & Continuity · w2067−0.64, worse
Net5281−29.0
Your scenario
Nansen Portfolio 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 14 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 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 14 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Valuation Auditabilitystrength 2 · weight 30Report an error—14 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.Custody & Address Exposurestrength 2 · weight 25Report an error—14 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.Long-Tail & LP Fidelitystrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—14 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.Pricing Transparency & Continuitystrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—14 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 Valuation Auditability · 30% (Nansen Portfolio 2/10)Scored by Custody & Address Exposure · 25% (Nansen Portfolio 2/10)Scored by Long-Tail & LP Fidelity · 25% (Nansen Portfolio 5/10)
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: Pricing Transparency & Continuity (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "For $49/month (annual) or $69/month (monthly), you get unlimited access to both web and mobile, plus all the premium features", including "Unlimited portfolios & smart alerts" ("Annual: $49/month = $588/year", "Monthly: $69/month = $828/year"). The previous Professional plan cost "Annual: $11,988/year ($999/month)" / "Monthly: $15,588/year ($1,299/month)"; Nansen says it has "simplified everything into with a single paid plan: Nansen Pro". Trading is fee-bearing: spot 0.75% and perps builder fee 0.08% for unranked users (lower by Points tier), plus Hyperliquid's base fee on perps.Nansen Portfolio — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDNansen Portfolio — official pricing page ↗ · 14 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
- Singapore
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Nansen's terms generally restrict Bhutan (including the Gelephu Mindfulness City SAR), Singapore, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. Perpetuals are also unavailable in the United States and United Kingdom (checked 14 September 2026).
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Nansen Portfolio: 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
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 52, #7 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 defi_dashboards:nansen:2026.10.18:ee6e698478c7
Are you Nansen Portfolio? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Nansen , on file since May 2026 — the review is separate from the score.