Provider at a glance
- Category
- NFT Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- nftpricefloor.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 56 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
NFT Price Floor
NFT floor-price rankings
NFT Analytics
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 6 NFT analytics in the published ranking
56
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is NFT Price Floor right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number1/10 here; CryptoSlam scores 6
- What the printed number actually counts2/10 here; NFTScan scores 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error1/10 here; NFTScan scores 3
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 NFT analytics tool shows where it lands for you.
What will NFT Price Floor cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is NFT Price Floor?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to NFT Price Floor
Compare all 4- 3CoinGecko NFT10 points above · stronger on wash filter (5 against 1)66
- 4NFTScan5 points above · stronger on number definition (6 against 2)61
- 5CryptoSlam5 points above · stronger on wash filter (6 against 1)61
For your setup
Find out if NFT Price Floor fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where NFT Price Floor 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 NFT analytics toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why NFT Price Floor ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (6.6 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
301+0.965.56#5/6Loading evidence…
262+1.665.06#5/6Loading evidence…
241+0.772.57#5/6Loading evidence…
205+3.201.55#1/6Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind CryptoSlam, #5
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 54–58 and stays #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 NFT Price Floor’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.
What the vendor removes before it prints the number 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes CryptoSlam+362#6 → #4
What the printed number actually counts 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes CryptoSlam+361#6 → #4
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes CryptoSlam+361#6 → #4
Whether the number is revised after you have used it 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes CryptoSlam+461#6 → #4
Smallest climb: what the vendor removes before it prints the number 1 → 4 passes CryptoSlam, #5.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it — 5/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 1/10 against a category best of 6/10
- What the printed number actually counts — 2/10 against a category best of 6/10
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error — 1/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- Two distribution channels publish different commercial terms, and they cannot be reconciled. The vendor's own llms.txt/llms-full.txt/ai-plugin.json describe a RapidAPI-resold API (base URL https://nftpf-api-v0.p.rapidapi.com/) with Basic/PRO/ULTRA/MEGA tiers, while https://api.nftpricefloor.com/ is a separate QuickAPI-hosted hub whose rendered page lists "ALL /brands 1 credit per call ALL /projects 1 credit per call ALL /projects-v2 1 credit per call ALL /root 1 credit per call" and then "Login or Signup", with no credit price shown before login. The $99/$199 figures could not be confirmed on RapidAPI itself: https://rapidapi.com/nftpricefloor/api/nftpf-api-v0 returned HTTP 200 but renders its plan prices client-side — the strings "$99" and "$199" are absent from the served HTML, while RapidAPI's generic tier copy ("For individuals who just want the essentials to get started quickly") is present. The consumer website itself is free and publishes no pricing page — /pricing returns HTTP 404. Also note the published API schema and the site's serving endpoint disagree in shape — llms-full.txt declares "parentCollection": "string | null" and "subCollection": "boolean", whereas https://api-bff.nftpricefloor.com/projects returns objects ({"name": "Art Blocks", "slug": "art-blocks"}) and a subCollection that on 2026-09-28 was an object on 905 records and null on the other 923; and the documented field reservoirCollectionId appears 0 times in the served payload, where the corresponding field is providerCollectionId on all 1,828 records served on 2026-09-28. Finally, llms-full.txt section 9 ("Data Coverage & Supported Blockchains") lists only "**Ethereum**", "**Polygon**" and "**Solana**", while on 2026-09-28 the live feed served ten chains, including robinhood (19 collections), which appears on neither the changelog nor llms.txt — the docs understate coverage here, the opposite of the venue overstatement. One process note for future re-checks: my first request to https://nft-api.nftpricefloor.com/openapi.json was answered from a stale Vercel edge cache (x-vercel-cache: HIT, age 35450) with an unrelated 744KB spec belonging to a different vendor; three subsequent requests all returned the correct 21.9KB NFT Price Floor spec (info.version "1.0.0", six paths, server https://nftpf-api-v0.p.rapidapi.com/).
Competitive position
Where NFT Price Floor 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 / 614.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 64.9 of 30 · best 13.3
Friction#1 / 62.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 63.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 68.3 of 18 · constant here
Where NFT Price Floor leads
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it#1 / 6
Where it trails
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number#5 / 6
- What the printed number actually counts#5 / 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error#5 / 6
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.
CryptoSlam#5 of 6 · score 61 · 5.0 points ahead
NFT Price Floor leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 1
CryptoSlam leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6 vs 1
Largest single reason CryptoSlam is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: CryptoSlam has no verified pricing for this scenario.
NFTScan#4 of 6 · score 61 · 5.0 points ahead
NFT Price Floor leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 1
NFTScan leads on
- What the printed number actually counts6 vs 2
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error3 vs 1
Largest single reason NFTScan is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: NFTScan has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CoinGecko NFT#3 of 6 · score 66 · 10.0 points ahead
NFT Price Floor leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 2
CoinGecko NFT leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number5 vs 1
- What the printed number actually counts5 vs 2
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error2 vs 1
Largest single reason CoinGecko NFT is ahead: published criteria (+10.1 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGecko NFT has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
78 vs 56 · gap 22.0Why NFTGo ranks above NFT Price Floor
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 22.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisNFTGoGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight4.913.3−21.8, 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 criterionThisNFTGoPoints
What the vendor removes before it prints the number · w3016−4.80, worse
What the printed number actually counts · w2625−2.50, worse
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · w2416−3.84, worse
Net5678−22.0
Your scenario
NFT Price Floor is not priced for this scenario
Marketplace fee on your volume for a year. Excludes 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
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 6 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
6 of 6 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 #6 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
What the vendor removes before it prints the numberstrength 1 · weight 30Report 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 the printed number actually countsstrength 2 · 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.A mark for the token you hold, with a published errorstrength 1 · 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.Whether the number is revised after you have used itstrength 5 · weight 20Report 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 What the vendor removes before it prints the number · 30% (NFT Price Floor 1/10)Scored by What the printed number actually counts · 26% (NFT Price Floor 2/10)Scored by A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · 24% (NFT Price Floor 1/10)Scored by Whether the number is revised after you have used it · 20% (NFT Price Floor 5/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- From the vendor's own https://
nft-api .nftpricefloor .com /llms .txt (HTTP 200 on 28 September 2026; the file is stamped "# Last Updated: 2026-02-21"), under "## Pricing & Plans": "Basic (Free)" "$0/month" "1,000 API calls per month"; "PRO" "$99/month" "500,000 API calls per month"; "ULTRA" "$199/month" "500,000 API calls per month" plus "Full historical data access (540 days)"; "MEGA (Enterprise)" "Custom pricing" "Unlimited API calls". These are the vendor's published figures, not a checkout page: the RapidAPI listing https:// rapidapi .com /nftpricefloor /api /nftpf-api-v 0 (HTTP 200) renders plan prices client-side and its served HTML does not contain them, the paid endpoint https:// nftpf-api-v0 .p .rapidapi .com /projects-v2 returns HTTP 401 without a key, and the separate hub at https:// api .nftpricefloor .com / (HTTP 200) lists each endpoint at "1 credit per call" with no credit price before "Login or Signup". The website itself is free; https:// nftpricefloor .com /pricing returns HTTP 404.NFT Price Floor — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDNFT Price Floor — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, ApeChain, Base, Solana, Bitcoin, Polygon, Arbitrum, Blast, Optimism, Robinhood 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 NFT Price Floor: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 56, #6 of 6. 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 nft_analytics:nftpricefloor:2026.10.18:fdb9fc986e75
Are you NFT Price Floor? 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.