Provider at a glance
- Category
- NFT Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.nftgo.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 78 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
NFTGo
NFT data API
NFT Analytics
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 6 NFT analytics in the published ranking
78
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is NFTGo right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6/10, the category best
- What the printed number actually counts5/10; the category best is 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error6/10; the category best is 7
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5/10, the category best
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 NFTGo cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is NFTGo?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to NFTGo
Compare all 4- 2bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)3 points below · stronger on token level mark (7 against 6)75
- 3CoinGecko NFT12 points below · weaker on token level mark (2 against 6)66
- 4NFTScan17 points below · stronger on number definition (6 against 5)61
For your setup
Find out if NFTGo fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where NFTGo 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 it leads
Why NFTGo 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 (17.7 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
306+5.765.56#1/6Loading evidence…
265+4.165.06#2/6Loading evidence…
246+4.612.57#2/6Loading 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+3over bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs), #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–79 and stays #1
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 NFTGo’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 6 → 4 on its ladder · bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) passes it−278#1 → #2
What the printed number actually counts 5 → 2 on its ladder · bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) passes it−376#1 → #2
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error 6 → 3 on its ladder · bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) passes it−377#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10, the category best
- What the printed number actually counts — 5/10, category best 6/10
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error — 6/10, category best 7/10
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it — 5/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- FIRST, the wash-filter rule is published: https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1 carries a 'Wash Trade Auto Filter' table enumerating the metrics filtered automatically in the web product, and both metric glossaries label each affected figure 'Suspected wash trades have been filtered out'. The rule itself is still unreproducible ('transaction cycles and transaction closed loops'), and the V1.1 API default is false in the published OpenAPI: default-on in the UI, default-off in the API, both series recoverable. SECOND, on accuracy: the words 'accuracy, stability and Interpretability' are a link description in the 'Learn More' list on https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/gopricing, not the substance of the evaluation docs; https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/evaluation-method names MAPE as the primary metric and publishes its formula, omitting only every number. THIRD, it is not a flat contradiction that algorithm-principle says 'Parameters are calculated by linear regression according to transaction history' while gopricing says 'Normally, gradient-boosting models perform well in small data scenarios of the NFT market.' Read in context the gopricing line is a general remark — it is preceded by 'This floor price-based framework is suitable for any regression model' — and the Stanford Blockchain Review paper NFTGo links from that same page discusses GBDT at length specifically to reject it for poor interpretability in favour of the linear Premium Model. So this is an ambiguity about which estimator is actually fitted, not two flatly opposed claims; it remains a disclosure defect because no page states the shipped estimator unambiguously. Finally, the formula 'Estimate Price = Floor Price + Intercept + Sum of (Trait Weights x Floor Price)' is rendered on the algorithm page as an IMAGE (files.readme.io/710898f-image.png), not as text (as the page's markdown source shows). An automated summariser returned it to an earlier pass as a verbatim quote. It is not quoted as text anywhere in this record and no downstream copy should either.
Competitive position
Where NFTGo 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#1 / 613.3 of 30 · pool best
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 NFTGo leads
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number#1 / 6
- What the printed number actually counts#2 / 6
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error#2 / 6
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it#1 / 6
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.
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)#2 of 6 · score 75 · 3.0 points behind
NFTGo leads on
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 1
bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) leads on
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error7 vs 6
Largest single reason NFTGo is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CoinGecko NFT#3 of 6 · score 66 · 12.0 points behind
NFTGo leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6 vs 5
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error6 vs 2
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 2
CoinGecko NFT leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason NFTGo is ahead: published criteria (+11.7 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGecko NFT has no verified pricing for this scenario.
NFTScan#4 of 6 · score 61 · 17.0 points behind
NFTGo leads on
- What the vendor removes before it prints the number6 vs 1
- A mark for the token you hold, with a published error6 vs 3
- Whether the number is revised after you have used it5 vs 1
NFTScan leads on
- What the printed number actually counts6 vs 5
Largest single reason NFTGo is ahead: published criteria (+17.2 display points).Scenario cost: NFTScan has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
78 vs 75 · gap 3.0Why NFTGo ranks above bitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)
DimensionThisbitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.312.0+3.4, 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 criterionThisbitsCrunch (UnleashNFTs)Points
A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · w2467−0.77, worse
Whether the number is revised after you have used it · w2051+2.56, better
Net7875+3.0
Your scenario
NFTGo 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 #1 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 6 · 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 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.A mark for the token you hold, with a published errorstrength 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.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% (NFTGo 6/10)Scored by What the printed number actually counts · 26% (NFTGo 5/10)Scored by A mark for the token you hold, with a published error · 24% (NFTGo 6/10)Scored by Whether the number is revised after you have used it · 20% (NFTGo 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
- No price is published on any page loaded on 28 September 2026. The Compute Units page at https://
docs .nftgo .io /reference /compute-units (HTTP 200) states: "To ensure more reasonable pricing for our services, we utilize "compute units" (CU) to describe the cost for each API on NFTGo, as the cost can vary significantly across different APIs. Your charges will be based on the volume of CUs consumed." It then publishes per-endpoint CU costs under the columns "API Endpoint | CU(s) | CU(s) Additional" (for example, Get NFTs by collection costs 800 CU and Get rarity by NFT 100 CU) but no currency amount per CU and no plan tiers. The docs name the plan and billing surfaces elsewhere: https:// docs .nftgo .io /v2 .2 /reference /introduction .md says "You can view [Pricing](https:// developer .nftgo .io /pricing) and choose the package plan that best suits your needs" and "Currently, we have a rate limit of 5 requests per second (5RPS) for a free trial." On 28 September 2026 https:// developer .nftgo .io /pricing and https:// developer .nftgo .io / both returned HTTP 404 with the body {"error_msg":"404 Route Not Found"}, exactly as on 14 August 2026, and https:// nftgo .io /pricing returned HTTP 403 behind a Cloudflare challenge (a rendering fetch was also refused with 403). No CU-to-currency rate is readable anywhere, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.NFTGo — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDNFTGo — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum One, Avalanche, Base, BSC, Optimism, Solana
- 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 NFTGo: 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 78, #1 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:nftgo:2026.10.18:fdb9fc986e75
Are you NFTGo? 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.