The score, by dimension
- the same for all 7
- #1 of 7 · best 21.8
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
Realms
DAO platform on Solana
#1 of all 7 worldwide82
- Rank
- #1 of all 7 worldwidere-runs: scores 82 and stays #1
- Your cost
- $0.00 a year0% trading fee · read
- Evidence
- High4 of 4 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read November 2026checked · re-read due
Check availability for your country
Realms · realms.today. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
The verdict
Realms is #1 of 7 published DAO governance tools; it scores 10/10 on enforceable execution, the category best. Its widest gap is exit path: 8/10, where the category best is 10.
Is Realms right for you?
Suits you if
- Does the vote itself move the money10/10, the category best
- Who can still touch the funds after the vote8/10; the category best is 9
- Whether you can learn the price without a sales call10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if
- What you keep if the vendor disappears8/10 here; the category best is 10
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 DAO governance tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Realms cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
The fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order.
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Trading fee
- 0%
How safe is Realms?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Entity: not verified. No hand-confirmed record on file ties Realms to the company that runs it, so this page cannot say which other products that company operates. Read the legal entity in its terms before you deposit. How we read the evidence
Open the evidenceIf it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 2Aragon (OSx + Aragon App)6 points below · weaker on published price (7 against 10)76no verified pricing
- 3DAOhaus (Moloch v3 / Baal)If post vote treasury control matters most: 99 points below · stronger on post vote treasury control (9 against 8)73no verified pricing
- 4Cactus (formerly Tally)11 points below · weaker on exit path (5 against 8)71$30 a year · read
Provider at a glance
- Category
- DAO Governance Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- realms.today
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 82 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in November 2026.
For your setup
Find out if Realms fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Realms 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 DAO governance toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Realms 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 (29.1 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
3510+11.209.010#1/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-11-10258+6.406.09#2/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-11-102010+6.407.010#1/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-11-10208+5.128.010#3/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-11-10Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+6over Aragon (OSx + Aragon App), #2 of all 7 worldwide, on the published score
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 82 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 Realms’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.
Does the vote itself move the money 10 → 7 on its ladder · Aragon (OSx + Aragon App) passes it−380#1 → #2
Who can still touch the funds after the vote 8 → 4 on its ladder · Aragon (OSx + Aragon App) passes it−480#1 → #2
Whether you can learn the price without a sales call 10 → 5 on its ladder · Aragon (OSx + Aragon App) passes it−580#1 → #2
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Does the vote itself move the money — 10/10, the category best
- Who can still touch the funds after the vote — 8/10, category best 9/10
- Whether you can learn the price without a sales call — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What you keep if the vendor disappears — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Realms is Solana-only, so it is not on the same shortlist as the EVM products here unless the treasury is already on Solana. Its costs are also denominated in SOL rather than fixed in dollars, which means the published "~2 SOL" deployment figure moves with the token: the $174.86 above is a 2026-08-06 13:23 UTC conversion at SOL/USD 72.86, not a price the vendor quotes in USD, and it will be a different number on the day you read this.
Competitive position
How Realms places on each criterion
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.
Against #2
82 vs 76 · gap 6.0Why Realms ranks above Aragon (OSx + Aragon App)
DimensionThisAragon (OSx + Aragon App)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight21.819.6+5.7, 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 criterionThisAragon (OSx + Aragon App)Points
Does the vote itself move the money · w35109+1.12, better
Whether you can learn the price without a sales call · w20107+1.92, better
Net8276+6.0
Your scenario
What Realms costs on your scenario
Trading 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
$1k a month × 12 months × 0% trading fee = $0.00 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Trading fee · published rate0%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 10 November 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.
$0.00
The fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order: not a total, and never compared as one.Under the default inputs · USDTypical cost and lowest feeNot statedOnly 1 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a typical cost and a lowest fee need at least 3.
5 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the typical, not counted as free.
1 of 7 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the typical and the lowest fee, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 10 November 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.CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Does the vote itself move the moneystrength 10 · weight 35Report an errorProvider's own page10 November 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Who can still touch the funds after the votestrength 8 · weight 25Report an errorProvider's own page10 November 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether you can learn the price without a sales callstrength 10 · weight 20Report an errorProvider's own page10 November 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.What you keep if the vendor disappearsstrength 8 · weight 20Report an errorProvider's own page10 November 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Realms 10/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Does the vote itself move the money · 35%
- Custody failure (Realms 8/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Who can still touch the funds after the vote · 25%
- Exit failure (Realms 8/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What you keep if the vendor disappears · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness 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: Whether you can learn the price without a sales call (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Realms does not charge any additional fees for platform usage." and the published deployment table: "DAO Creation ~2 SOL* | Metadata ~0.5 SOL*º | Treasury Accounts ~0.2 SOL* | Voter Account ~0.1 SOL* | Delegation Hub Profile ~0.1 SOL*", with "ºMetadata set up is free during DAO creation" and ongoing costs listed as "Voting: SPL ~ 0.0015 SOL", "NFT ~ 0.00167 SOL (Reclaimable)" and "Proposal Creation: min ~ 0.0020 SOL" (docs.realms.today/introduction/costs.md, fetched 10 November 2026). NORMALISED 10 November 2026 — a worked example: the dollar figures that follow are this note’s arithmetic on the vendor’s published rate, not figures printed on the page — on the common scenario of a DAO that passes and executes 24 treasury proposals in a year moving $2,000,000 in total: platform fee = 0% x $2,000,000 = $0 for the year. One-time setup, taking creation + treasury + voter + delegate profile and excluding metadata because the vendor states it is free at creation: 2 + 0.2 + 0.1 + 0.1 = 2.4 SOL. Converted on 10 November 2026, CoinGecko simple/price returned SOL/USD 85.24, so 2.4 x 85.24 = $204.58 one-time (it was $242.35 at SOL/USD 100.98 on 28 October 2026; the SOL figures did not change, the token price did). This figure must be re-derived on the day it is shown. Twenty-four proposals plus their votes are a rounding error at these rates and are not padded into a figure here.Realms — official pricing page ↗ · 10 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRealms — official pricing page ↗ · 10 November 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
- Realms Terms of Service (https://
realms .today /terms-of-service, "Last Updated January 2025"), read 2026-11-10: "THE INTERFACE AND ANY RELATED SERVICES ARE NOT OFFERED TO AND MAY NOT BE USED BY: PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO RESIDE IN, ARE CITIZENS OF, ARE LOCATED IN, ARE INCORPORATED IN, OR HAVE A REGISTERED OFFICE IN ANY RESTRICTED TERRITORY, AS DEFINED BELOW (EACH SUCH PERSON OR ENTITY FROM A RESTRICTED TERRITORY, A " RESTRICTED PERSON "). WE DO NOT MAKE EXCEPTIONS." and "FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE TERMS, " RESTRICTED TERRITORY " MEANS OF BELARUS, BURMA (MYANMAR), BURUNDI, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CRIMEA AND SEVASTOPOL, CUBA, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, DONETSK, IRAN, LUHANSK, MALI, NICARAGUA, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA, SOMALIA, SOUTH SUDAN, SUDAN, SYRIA, VENEZUELA, YEMEN, ZIMBABWE OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY TO WHICH CANADA, PANAMA, THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED KINGDOM OR THE EUROPEAN UNION EMBARGOES GOODS OR IMPOSES SIMILAR SANCTIONS."
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Realms: 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
- 10 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.11.1Score 82, #1 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 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt governance_tools:realms:2026.11.1:693886cf32d5
Are you Realms? 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.