Provider at a glance
- Category
- DeFi Dashboards
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- octav.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Octav
Portfolio reporting for funds and DAOs
DeFi Dashboards
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 8 DeFi dashboards in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Octav right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity7/10, the category best
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Valuation Auditability5/10 here; DefiLlama scores 8
- Custody & Address Exposure3/10 here; DefiLlama scores 6
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 DeFi dashboard shows where it lands for you.
What will Octav cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Octav?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Octav
Compare all 4- 2DefiLlama6 points above · stronger on valuation auditability (8 against 5)72
- 4Zerion7 points below · weaker on valuation auditability (3 against 5)59
- 5Portals (Explorer)8 points below · stronger on custody and data exposure (6 against 3)58
For your setup
Find out if Octav fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Octav 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 Octav ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.6 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
305+4.803.010#3/8Loading evidence…
253+2.403.510#5/8Loading evidence…
257+5.605.07#1/8Loading evidence…
209+5.766.09#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind DefiLlama, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 64–68 and stays #3
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 Octav’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 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes DefiLlama+474#3 → #2
Custody & Address Exposure 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes DefiLlama+472#3 → #2
Valuation Auditability 5 → 0 on its ladder · Zerion passes it−557#3 → #6
Long-Tail & LP Fidelity 7 → 2 on its ladder · Zerion passes it−558#3 → #4
Pricing Transparency & Continuity 9 → 2 on its ladder · Zerion passes it−758#3 → #5
Smallest climb: valuation Auditability 5 → 9 passes DefiLlama, #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity — 7/10, the category best
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Valuation Auditability — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Custody & Address Exposure — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The $149/year headline is per wallet address, not per user. A DAO treasury or fund running ten wallets pays $1,490/year on Lite or $4,990/year on Pro — which inverts the apparent ranking against DefiLlama Pro ($490/year, unlimited) and Nansen Pro. Model your actual address count before comparing the sticker prices.
- octav.fi states '50+ Chains' and '10,000+ Protocol'. The AI transaction labelling and NAV report claims are confirmed ('Powerful ways to review your transaction history with AI', 'Generate Net Asset Value reports automatically').
Competitive position
Where Octav 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#3 / 813.9 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 Octav leads
- Valuation Auditability#3 / 8
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity#1 / 8
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity#1 / 8
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.
DefiLlama#2 of 8 · score 72 · 6.0 points ahead
Octav leads on
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity7 vs 4
DefiLlama leads on
- Valuation Auditability8 vs 5
- Custody & Address Exposure6 vs 3
Largest single reason DefiLlama is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: DefiLlama has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zerion#4 of 8 · score 59 · 7.0 points behind
Octav leads on
- Valuation Auditability5 vs 3
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity9 vs 6
Zerion leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Octav is ahead: published criteria (+7.5 display points).Scenario cost: Zerion has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Portals (Explorer)#5 of 8 · score 58 · 8.0 points behind
Octav leads on
- Valuation Auditability5 vs 3
- Long-Tail & LP Fidelity7 vs 5
- Pricing Transparency & Continuity9 vs 4
Portals (Explorer) leads on
- Custody & Address Exposure6 vs 3
Largest single reason Octav is ahead: published criteria (+8.3 display points).Scenario cost: Portals (Explorer) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 66 · gap 15.0Why Rotki ranks above Octav
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 15.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRotkiGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.919.6−14.8, 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 criterionThisRotkiPoints
Valuation Auditability · w30510−4.80, worse
Custody & Address Exposure · w25310−5.60, worse
Long-Tail & LP Fidelity · w2575+1.60, better
Pricing Transparency & Continuity · w2097+1.28, better
Net6681−15.0
Your scenario
Octav 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 #3 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 5 · 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 3 · 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 7 · 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 9 · 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% (Octav 5/10)Scored by Custody & Address Exposure · 25% (Octav 3/10)Scored by Long-Tail & LP Fidelity · 25% (Octav 7/10)
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
- Lite License "$149 / year" per address and Pro License "$499 / year" per address. Docs: "Per address - Each license applies to one wallet address", "Per year - Annual billing", and "Each license is valid for 1 wallet address for 1 year." "Auto-renewal optional". Widgets are also sold individually: "Lite - $10-50 per widget", "Pro - $25-50 per widget". The free tier covers core portfolio widgets; Institutional/Enterprise is custom-priced. API credits run from "400 Credits $10.00" ($0.025/credit) to 1,000,000 credits for $20,000.00 ($0.020/credit).Octav — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDOctav — 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
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Octav's terms limit use to residents of countries 'in which the Services are supported' but name no supported or excluded country (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 Octav: 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 66, #3 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:octav:2026.10.18:ee6e698478c7
Are you Octav? 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.