Provider at a glance
- Category
- DeFi Insurance
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- opencover.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 69 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
OpenCover
Front end for onchain cover
DeFi Insurance
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 DeFi insurance in the published ranking
69
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is OpenCover right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Who can buy it9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Claims actually paid6/10 here; Nexus Mutual scores 10
- What is actually covered7/10 here; Nexus Mutual scores 9
- Capital adequacy & backing2/10 here; Evertas scores 8
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 insurance provider shows where it lands for you.
What will OpenCover cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is OpenCover?
- Evidence: unknown4 of 4 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to OpenCover
Compare all 4- 1Nexus Mutual17 points above · stronger on claims record (10 against 6)86
- 3Chainproof15 points below · stronger on backing (7 against 2)54
- 4Evertas23 points below · stronger on backing (8 against 2)46
For your setup
Find out if OpenCover fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where OpenCover 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 insurance providerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why OpenCover ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.0 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
326+6.142.010#2/7Loading evidence…
287+6.273.09#2/7Loading evidence…
222+1.416.08#7/7Loading evidence…
189+5.183.09#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−17behind Nexus Mutual, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 67–70 and stays #2
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
The ranking was run again with each of OpenCover’s criterion scores changed on its own, as far as each ladder goes in both directions. None of those changes moves its rank.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Who can buy it — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Claims actually paid — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What is actually covered — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Capital adequacy & backing — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Two distinct risks. First, OpenCover carries no risk itself — it is a broker with no balance sheet, so counterparty performance is entirely the…
- Permissionless purchase by wallet connect; OpenCover's terms impose no KYC but require users to be 18+ and not resident in 21 listed jurisdictions.
- No exploit or insolvency found affecting OpenCover. The integrity issue is directory staleness and a 404 on its own cover-products index, not loss of…
Competitive position
Where OpenCover 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 / 720.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#2 / 714.3 of 30 · best 18.9
Friction#2 / 74.0 of 10 · best 5.3
Trust record#2 / 74.8 of 8 · best 5.6
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where OpenCover leads
- Claims actually paid#2 / 7
- What is actually covered#2 / 7
- Who can buy it#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Capital adequacy & backing#7 / 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.
Chainproof#3 of 7 · score 54 · 15.0 points behind
OpenCover leads on
- Claims actually paid6 vs 2
- What is actually covered7 vs 5
- Who can buy it9 vs 2
Chainproof leads on
- Capital adequacy & backing7 vs 2
Largest single reason OpenCover is ahead: published criteria (+12.5 display points).Scenario cost: Chainproof has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Nexus Mutual#1 of 7 · score 86 · 17.0 points ahead
OpenCover leads on
- Who can buy it9 vs 7
Nexus Mutual leads on
- Claims actually paid10 vs 6
- What is actually covered9 vs 7
- Capital adequacy & backing4 vs 2
Largest single reason Nexus Mutual is ahead: published criteria (+12.0 display points).Scenario cost: Nexus Mutual has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Evertas#4 of 7 · score 46 · 23.0 points behind
OpenCover leads on
- Claims actually paid6 vs 2
- What is actually covered7 vs 2
- Who can buy it9 vs 3
Evertas leads on
- Capital adequacy & backing8 vs 2
Largest single reason OpenCover is ahead: published criteria (+15.3 display points).Scenario cost: Evertas has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
86 vs 69 · gap 17.0Why Nexus Mutual ranks above OpenCover
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 17.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisNexus MutualGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.318.9−12.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight4.05.3−3.4, worse
Trust record · 9% weight4.85.6−2.1, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisNexus MutualPoints
Claims actually paid · w32610−4.10, worse
What is actually covered · w2879−1.79, worse
Capital adequacy & backing · w2224−1.41, worse
Who can buy it · w1897+1.15, better
Net6986−17.0
Your scenario
OpenCover 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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 evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsReading…category publishes no receipt file
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
7 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Claims actually paidstrength 6 · weight 32Report an error——
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 is actually coveredstrength 7 · weight 28Report an error——
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.Capital adequacy & backingstrength 2 · weight 22Report an error——
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.Who can buy itstrength 9 · weight 18Report an error——
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
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Claims actually paid · 32% (OpenCover 6/10)Scored by What is actually covered · 28% (OpenCover 7/10)Scored by Capital adequacy & backing · 22% (OpenCover 2/10)
- Regulatory failure (OpenCover 9/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Who can buy it · 18%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- OpenCover advertises 'premiums starting at $2 per week for $5,000 of coverage', which works out to $104/yr on $5,000 = 2.08% per annum. That is an advertised FLOOR, not a representative quote, and OpenCover's own service fee comes on top: its terms say the fee 'is shown on the quote screen before purchase', and the quote panel lists it separately from the cover price. The purchase app names Nexus Mutual as the cover provider. On 14 September 2026 the median minimum annual rate across 233 Nexus listings with capacity was 2.00%, and minimum rates ran from 0.15% to 29%. A buyer should expect the top of that range on higher-risk listings.OpenCover — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDOpenCover — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Permissionless purchase by wallet connect in the OpenCover app; OpenCover's terms impose no KYC but require users to be 18+, not resident in 21 listed jurisdictions, and not under US, UK or EU sanctions.
- Availability note
- Permissionless purchase by wallet connect in the OpenCover app; OpenCover's terms impose no KYC but require users to be 18+, not resident in 21 listed jurisdictions (Afghanistan, Belarus, Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Eritrea, Guinea Bissau, Iraq, Iran, Liberia, Mali, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, the Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen), and not under US, UK or EU sanctions. Claims are submitted through OpenCover's claims team (opencover.com/claim); the underwriter's own terms govern the claim, and Nexus Mutual's docs state that cover bought without joining the mutual requires joining (with KYC) before a claim.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with OpenCover: 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.
10 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 69, #2 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 defi_insurance:opencover:2026.10.18:2dd6ab7eb630
Are you OpenCover? 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.