Provider at a glance
- Category
- Block Explorers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- routescan.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 84 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Routescan
Multichain block explorer
Block Explorers
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 9 block explorers in the published ranking
84
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Routescan right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- What works without paying9/10, the category best
- Data completeness & indexing lag8/10, the category best
- Contract verification support7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Independence from the chain3/10 here; Etherscan 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 block explorer shows where it lands for you.
What will Routescan cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Routescan?
- 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 Routescan
Compare all 4- 2Etherscan8 points below · stronger on independence (8 against 3)76
- 3Blockscout8 points below · stronger on independence (7 against 3)76
- 4mempool.space12 points below · stronger on independence (8 against 3)72
For your setup
Find out if Routescan fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Routescan 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 block explorerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Routescan 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 (22.6 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
309+8.644.09#1/9Loading evidence…
268+6.664.08#1/9Loading evidence…
247+5.385.08#2/9Loading evidence…
203+1.927.08#7/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+8over Etherscan, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 83–84 and stays #1
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Routescan’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 works without paying 9 → 4 on its ladder · Etherscan passes it−581#1 → #3
Data completeness & indexing lag 8 → 3 on its ladder · Etherscan passes it−582#1 → #2
Contract verification support 7 → 1 on its ladder · Etherscan passes it−681#1 → #3
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- What works without paying — 9/10, the category best
- Data completeness & indexing lag — 8/10, the category best
- Contract verification support — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Independence from the chain — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- status.routescan.io measures availability, not index currency or completeness; it logs a 2h30m maintenance window across all services in mid-August 2026.
- Published rate limits and plan prices could not be read on 2026-09-14: routescan.io returned an access block (CloudFront 403) to the reading client.
- Public status page at status.routescan.io with a retrievable archive (contrary to the prior draft).
Competitive position
Where Routescan 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 / 920.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 916.9 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 95.3 of 10 · pool best
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Routescan leads
- What works without paying#1 / 9
- Data completeness & indexing lag#1 / 9
- Contract verification support#2 / 9
Where it trails
- Independence from the chain#7 / 9
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.
Etherscan#2 of 9 · score 76 · 8.0 points behind
Routescan leads on
- What works without paying9 vs 4
- Data completeness & indexing lag8 vs 4
Etherscan leads on
- Contract verification support8 vs 7
- Independence from the chain8 vs 3
Largest single reason Routescan is ahead: published criteria (+8.1 display points).Scenario cost: Etherscan has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Blockscout#3 of 9 · score 76 · 8.0 points behind
Routescan leads on
- What works without paying9 vs 6
- Data completeness & indexing lag8 vs 5
- Contract verification support7 vs 6
Blockscout leads on
- Independence from the chain7 vs 3
Largest single reason Routescan is ahead: published criteria (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Blockscout has no verified pricing for this scenario.
mempool.space#4 of 9 · score 72 · 12.0 points behind
Routescan leads on
- Data completeness & indexing lag8 vs 4
- Contract verification support7 vs 1
mempool.space leads on
- Independence from the chain8 vs 3
Largest single reason Routescan is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: mempool.space has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
84 vs 76 · gap 8.0Why Routescan ranks above Etherscan
DimensionThisEtherscanGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.913.8+8.1, better
Friction · 12% weight5.35.3same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisEtherscanPoints
What works without paying · w3094+4.80, better
Data completeness & indexing lag · w2684+3.33, better
Contract verification support · w2478−0.77, worse
Independence from the chain · w2038−3.20, worse
Net8476+8.0
Your scenario
Routescan 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 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 of 9 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 #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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
9 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What works without payingstrength 9 · weight 30Report 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.Data completeness & indexing lagstrength 8 · weight 26Report 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.Contract verification supportstrength 7 · weight 24Report 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.Independence from the chainstrength 3 · weight 20Report 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Data completeness & indexing lag · 26% (Routescan 8/10)Scored by Independence from the chain · 20% (Routescan 3/10)
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: What works without paying (30%), Contract verification support (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not re-read on 2026-09-14: the pricing page at routescan.io/docs/plans-and-limits/api-keys-and-pricing returned an access block (CloudFront 403) to the reading client, so no plan prices or rate limits are published here. A keyless API call returned data the same day.Routescan — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRoutescan — 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
- A keyless API call (no key, no account) returned data on 14 September 2026. The published rate limits for keyless and free-key access could not be read: routescan.io returned an access block (CloudFront 403) to the reading client.
- Availability note
- A keyless API call (no key, no account) returned data on 14 September 2026. The published rate limits for keyless and free-key access could not be read: routescan.io returned an access block (CloudFront 403) to the reading client.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Routescan: 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
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 84, #1 of 9. 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 block_explorers:routescan:2026.10.18:cfd488cb896c
Are you Routescan? 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.