Provider at a glance
- Category
- Prediction Markets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.polymarket.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Polymarket
Onchain prediction market
Prediction Markets
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 prediction markets in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Polymarket right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Regulatory access7/10; the category best is 8
- Liquidity where you trade8/10; the category best is 9
- Total trading cost7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Resolution integrity3/10 here; Kalshi scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands….
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best prediction market shows where it lands for you.
What will Polymarket cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Polymarket?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Polymarket
Compare all 4- 1Kalshi2 points above · stronger on resolution (5 against 3)83$210
- 3Predict.fun12 points below · stronger on resolution (4 against 3)69$240
- 4SX Bet16 points below · weaker on access (2 against 7)65$120
For your setup
Find out if Polymarket fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Polymarket 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 prediction marketNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Polymarket 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 (19.1 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
323+3.073.05#3/8Loading evidence…
267+5.824.58#2/8Loading evidence…
248+6.145.59#2/8Loading evidence…
187+4.034.57#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Kalshi, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–83 and ranks #1–#2
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 Polymarket’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.
Resolution integrity 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Kalshi+183#2 → #1
Regulatory access 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kalshi+283#2 → #1
Liquidity where you trade 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Kalshi+283#2 → #1
Total trading cost 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kalshi+283#2 → #1
Liquidity where you trade 8 → 0 on its ladder · Predict.fun passes it−869#2 → #3
Smallest climb: resolution integrity 3 → 4 passes Kalshi, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Regulatory access — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Liquidity where you trade — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Total trading cost — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Resolution integrity — 3/10 against a category best of 5/10
Record watch-outs
- You are not buying a resolution guarantee; you are buying exposure to a token-weighted vote that documented evidence shows is concentrated and…
- Non-custodial - Polymarket's help centre states 'Polymarket uses non-custodial wallets, meaning we never take possession of your USDC'; no KYC requirement appears on its fees, resolution, dispute or geographic-restriction pages.
- Mar 2025 UMA governance attack: 5M UMA across three accounts, 25% of votes, odds 9% to 100%, ~$7M paid on a false resolution. $60M MicroStrategy…
Competitive position
Where Polymarket 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 / 820.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 814.3 of 30 · best 15.7
Friction#1 / 84.7 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Polymarket leads
- Resolution integrity#3 / 8
- Regulatory access#2 / 8
- Liquidity where you trade#2 / 8
- Total trading cost#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.
Kalshi#1 of 8 · score 83 · 2.0 points ahead
Polymarket leads on
- Total trading cost7 vs 4
Kalshi leads on
- Resolution integrity5 vs 3
- Regulatory access8 vs 7
- Liquidity where you trade9 vs 8
Largest single reason Kalshi is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Polymarket has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Predict.fun#3 of 8 · score 69 · 12.0 points behind
Polymarket leads on
- Regulatory access7 vs 4
- Liquidity where you trade8 vs 7
- Total trading cost7 vs 5
Predict.fun leads on
- Resolution integrity4 vs 3
Largest single reason Polymarket is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Polymarket has no verified pricing for this scenario.
SX Bet#4 of 8 · score 65 · 16.0 points behind
Polymarket leads on
- Regulatory access7 vs 2
- Liquidity where you trade8 vs 6
SX Bet leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Polymarket is ahead: published criteria (+11.2 display points).Scenario cost: Polymarket has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 81 · gap 2.0Why Kalshi ranks above Polymarket
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 2.0 to within rounding. Polymarket is ahead on friction (+1.8 in its favour).
DimensionThisKalshiGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.315.7−3.6, worse
Friction · 12% weight4.74.0+1.8, better
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisKalshiPoints
Resolution integrity · w3235−2.05, worse
Regulatory access · w2678−0.83, worse
Liquidity where you trade · w2489−0.77, worse
Total trading cost · w1874+1.73, better
Net8183−2.0
Your scenario
Polymarket is not priced for this scenario
Trading spread 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 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 median$2256 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest priced$120 · Opinion (Opinion Labs)Difference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Opinion (Opinion Labs)
2 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #1 to #2 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Resolution integritystrength 3 · weight 32Report 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.Regulatory accessstrength 7 · weight 26Report 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.Liquidity where you tradestrength 8 · weight 24Report 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.Total trading coststrength 7 · weight 18Report 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
- Oracle failure (Polymarket 3/10): a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.Scored by Resolution integrity · 32%
- Regulatory failure (Polymarket 7/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Regulatory access · 26%
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. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Liquidity where you trade (24%), Total trading cost (18%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Taker-only, category-tiered: fee = C x rate x p x (1-p). Rates re-read against the live docs on 14 Sep 2026: crypto 0.07, sports 0.05, economics 0.05, culture 0.05, weather 0.05, other/general 0.05, politics 0.04, finance 0.04, tech 0.04, mentions 0.04, geopolitics 0 (fee-free). Makers are never charged - maker rates are 0% in every category - and 15-25% of collected taker fees are rebated to makers (geopolitics has no rebate). Fees round to 5 decimals with a 0.00001 USDC minimum. No Polymarket deposit or withdrawal fee in USDC, though intermediaries may charge.Polymarket — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDPolymarket — 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
- Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Thailand, United Kingdom, United States
- Operating limits
- Non-custodial - Polymarket's help centre states 'Polymarket uses non-custodial wallets, meaning we never take possession of your USDC' and 'Polymarket is non-custodial and cannot alter or reverse market resolutions.' No KYC requirement appears on its fees, resolution, dispute or geographic-restriction pages.
- Availability note
- Non-custodial - Polymarket's help centre states 'Polymarket uses non-custodial wallets, meaning we never take possession of your USDC' and 'Polymarket is non-custodial and cannot alter or reverse market resolutions.' No KYC requirement appears on its fees, resolution, dispute or geographic-restriction pages. Completely restricted jurisdictions on the geographic-restrictions page: Australia, Belgium, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo (Kinshasa), Cuba, Germany, Ethiopia, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Japan, North Korea, Lebanon, Libya, Myanmar, Malta, Nicaragua, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Restricted regions within otherwise accessible countries: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec in Canada, and Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk in Ukraine. Polymarket US, a separate CFTC-regulated designated contract market, lists sports, with politics, culture, finance and economics 'coming soon'.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Polymarket: 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
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 81, #2 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 prediction_markets:polymarket:2026.10.18:58d25fc5e062
Are you Polymarket? 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.