Provider at a glance
- Category
- Onchain Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- nansen.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 55 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Nansen
Onchain analytics with wallet labels
Onchain Analytics
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 onchain analytics in the published ranking
55
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Nansen right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Query & data portability (lock-in)3/10 here; Artemis scores 5
- Attribution & methodology auditability2/10 here; Glassnode scores 6
- Chain & data coverage7/10 here; the category best is 10
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 analytics platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Nansen cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Transactions per year
- 1k
- Monthly price
- $0
Level with the median of 6 priced onchain analytics.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Nansen?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Nansen
Compare all 4- 3Artemis6 points above · stronger on attribution auditability (5 against 2)61$0.00
- 4Messari3 points above · stronger on attribution auditability (5 against 2)58$0.00
- 6GlassnodeLevel on score · stronger on attribution auditability (6 against 2)55$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Nansen 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 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 analytics platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Nansen ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
303+2.885.09#6/7Loading evidence…
252+1.605.09#6/7Loading evidence…
257+5.606.010#3/7Loading evidence…
208+5.126.08#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Messari, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 53–57 and ranks #5–#6
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’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.
Query & data portability (lock-in) 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Messari+259#5 → #4
Attribution & methodology auditability 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Messari+258#5 → #4
Chain & data coverage 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Messari+258#5 → #4
Query & data portability (lock-in) 3 → 2 on its ladder · Glassnode passes it−153#5 → #6
Attribution & methodology auditability 2 → 1 on its ladder · Glassnode passes it−154#5 → #6
Chain & data coverage 7 → 6 on its ladder · Glassnode passes it−154#5 → #6
Smallest climb: query & data portability (lock-in) 3 → 5 passes Messari, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Query & data portability (lock-in) — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Attribution & methodology auditability — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Chain & data coverage — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The API credits bundled with Pro are a one-time grant that is only topped back up, not a fresh monthly allowance — Nansen's docs state "a one-time grant of 2,000 credits when you subscribe, then a monthly top-up that brings your included credit balance back up to 2,000 only if it has fallen below 2,000." Since a single "agent/expert" call costs 750 credits, roughly three calls exhaust the grant until the next top-up, after which you are buying Flexi-Credits that "expire 1 year from purchase" at a rate the credits guide does not state ("at discounted rates"). Separately, Pro lists a "Discount on trading fees" without a published bps figure.
- The 'no lookback window' element is wrong. Nansen's API docs publish a Smart Money label taxonomy with explicit windows: 'Fund' (Institutional investment funds), 'Smart Trader' (Historically profitable traders), '30D Smart Trader' (Top performers (30-day window)), '90D Smart Trader' (180-day and 90-day equivalents follow). Lookback windows of 30/90/180 days are documented and filterable. The narrower claim survives — the 'Data Methodology & Technical Reference' page does confine itself to timing/snapshot mechanics and discloses no selection criteria, and no thresholds, accuracy rate or dispute path is published anywhere. Read again 14 September 2026: the lower band (2) stands.
Competitive position
Where Nansen 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#5 / 711.4 of 30 · best 21.7
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 Nansen leads
- Chain & data coverage#3 / 7
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Query & data portability (lock-in)#6 / 7
- Attribution & methodology auditability#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.
Glassnode#6 of 7 · score 55 · same score
Nansen leads on
- Chain & data coverage7 vs 3
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty8 vs 6
Glassnode leads on
- Query & data portability (lock-in)4 vs 3
- Attribution & methodology auditability6 vs 2
Largest single reason Nansen is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Glassnode is the same.
Messari#4 of 7 · score 58 · 3.0 points ahead
Nansen leads on
- Chain & data coverage7 vs 5
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty8 vs 6
Messari leads on
- Query & data portability (lock-in)5 vs 3
- Attribution & methodology auditability5 vs 2
Largest single reason Messari is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Messari is the same.
Artemis#3 of 7 · score 61 · 6.0 points ahead
Nansen leads on
- Chain & data coverage7 vs 6
- Published pricing & free-tier honesty8 vs 7
Artemis leads on
- Query & data portability (lock-in)5 vs 3
- Attribution & methodology auditability5 vs 2
Largest single reason Artemis is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Artemis is the same.
Against the leader
82 vs 55 · gap 27.0Why Dune ranks above Nansen
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 27.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisDuneGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.421.7−26.8, 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 criterionThisDunePoints
Query & data portability (lock-in) · w3039−5.76, worse
Attribution & methodology auditability · w2529−5.60, worse
Chain & data coverage · w25710−2.40, worse
Net5582−27.0
Your scenario
What Nansen costs on your 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
Monthly price · published rate$0
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 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.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.006 of 7 rows priced · Nansen at the median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · Token TerminalNansen costs the same · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Token Terminal
1 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 22 October 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 #5 to #6 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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Query & data portability (lock-in)strength 3 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 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.Attribution & methodology auditabilitystrength 2 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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.Chain & data coveragestrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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 pricing & free-tier honestystrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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
- Exit failure (Nansen 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Query & data portability (lock-in) · 30%
- Information failure (Nansen 2/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Attribution & methodology auditability · 25%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Chain & data coverage (25%), Published pricing & free-tier honesty (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- academy.nansen.ai "About Nansen Pro" (read 22 October 2026): Pro "$49/month (annual) or $69/month (monthly)" for web and mobile ("Annual: $49/month = $588/year", "Monthly: $69/month = $828/year"), including "2,000 AI Agent credits per week", "Full PnL & Labels (incl. Smart Money)", "Unlimited custom labels and watchlists" and "API / MCP one-time credits"; a Free tier remains (one active smart alert at a time). API credits (docs.nansen.ai/getting-started/credits.md): Free gets 100 one-time trial credits, then a daily top-up back to a 10-credit balance; Pro gets a one-time grant of 2,000 credits, then a monthly top-up back to 2,000 only if the included balance has fallen below 2,000. Flexi-Credits are sold "at discounted rates" (rate not published) and purchased credits "expire 1 year from purchase". Per-endpoint credit costs are published (e.g. 100 credits per non-empty address-labels response), and no-account x402 access is priced per call ("$0.01" basic, "$0.05" premium and Smart Money endpoints).Nansen — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDNansen — official pricing page ↗ · 22 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
- Singapore
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Nansen's Terms of Services (nansen.ai/legal/terms-of-services, read 22 October 2026) say access "may be restricted in the following jurisdictions: Generally, the Gelephu Mindfulness City Special Administrative Region and the Kingdom of Bhutan, Singapore, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and certain regions in Ukraine (including Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk)." and add "For the Perpetuals Feature (as defined below), in addition to the jurisdictions identified in item 1 above, the United States and the United Kingdom." Users must not be in any "Sanctioned Country" (comprehensive UN, US, EU or UK sanctions).
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Nansen: 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
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 55, #5 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 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt onchain_analytics:nansen:2026.10.18:d2814b98dbc9
Are you Nansen? 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.