Provider at a glance
- Category
- Sentiment Analytics
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- santiment.net
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)
Social, onchain and development metrics
Sentiment Analytics
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 sentiment analytics in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published price and free-tier substance9/10; the category best is 10
- Source and asset coverage9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published predictive evidence5/10 here; LunarCrush scores 8
- Documented bot filtering5/10 here; LunarCrush scores 7
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 sentiment analytics tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)
Compare all 4- 1LunarCrush1 point above · stronger on published predictive evidence (8 against 5)80
- 3The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)18 points below · stronger on manipulation filtering documented (6 against 5)61
- 4Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)19 points below · stronger on published price and what free survives (10 against 9)60
For your setup
Find out if Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 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 sentiment analytics toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 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 (21.8 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
305+4.803.08#2/8Loading evidence…
259+7.205.010#2/8Loading evidence…
255+4.005.07#3/8Loading evidence…
209+5.763.59#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind LunarCrush, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 77–80 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 Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)’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.
Published predictive evidence 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes LunarCrush+180#2 → #1
Published price and free-tier substance 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes LunarCrush+180#2 → #1
Documented bot filtering 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes LunarCrush+180#2 → #1
Smallest climb: published predictive evidence 5 → 6 passes LunarCrush, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published price and free-tier substance — 9/10, category best 10/10
- Source and asset coverage — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published predictive evidence — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Documented bot filtering — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- Paying $49/mo does not remove the API lag. The comparison table's "Realtime restriction for restricted metrics" row reads 30-day lag on Free, 30-day lag on Pro, and "No restriction" only on Max at $249/mo - so a buyer subscribing to Pro specifically to get real-time social data through the API gets the free tier's restriction. That costs $588 a year billed monthly ($49 x 12), or $529 a year at the page's own published annual figure. The Sanbase dashboard does go real-time on Pro; the API does not.
Competitive position
Where Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 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#2 / 816.3 of 30 · best 16.8
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 Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) leads
- Published predictive evidence#2 / 8
- Published price and free-tier substance#2 / 8
- Documented bot filtering#3 / 8
- Source and asset coverage#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.
LunarCrush#1 of 8 · score 80 · 1.0 point ahead
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) leads on
- Published price and free-tier substance9 vs 5
- Source and asset coverage9 vs 8
LunarCrush leads on
- Published predictive evidence8 vs 5
- Documented bot filtering7 vs 5
Largest single reason LunarCrush is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: LunarCrush has no verified pricing for this scenario.
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs)#3 of 8 · score 61 · 18.0 points behind
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) leads on
- Published predictive evidence5 vs 4
- Published price and free-tier substance9 vs 1
- Source and asset coverage9 vs 5
The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) leads on
- Documented bot filtering6 vs 5
Largest single reason Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) is ahead: published criteria (+17.7 display points).Scenario cost: The Tie (Terminal and Data APIs) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me)#4 of 8 · score 60 · 19.0 points behind
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) leads on
- Published predictive evidence5 vs 3
- Documented bot filtering5 vs 1
- Source and asset coverage9 vs 1
Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me) leads on
- Published price and free-tier substance10 vs 9
Largest single reason Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) is ahead: published criteria (+18.5 display points).Scenario cost: Crypto Fear & Greed Index (alternative.me) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 79 · gap 1.0Why LunarCrush ranks above Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisLunarCrushGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.316.8−1.3, 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 criterionThisLunarCrushPoints
Published predictive evidence · w3058−2.88, worse
Published price and free-tier substance · w2595+3.20, better
Documented bot filtering · w2557−1.60, worse
Source and asset coverage · w2098+0.64, better
Net7980−1.0
Your scenario
Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 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 28 October 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 7 August 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 7 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published predictive evidencestrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—7 August 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.Published price and free-tier substancestrength 9 · weight 25Report an error—7 August 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.Documented bot filteringstrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—7 August 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.Source and asset coveragestrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—7 August 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 Published predictive evidence · 30% (Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 5/10)Scored by Documented bot filtering · 25% (Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) 5/10)
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: Published price and free-tier substance (25%), Source and asset coverage (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fetched 27 September 2026 from https://
santiment .net /pricing (redirects to https:// app .santiment .net /pricing). The default "For Individuals" view renders three plans: Free at "$0", "Free forever", with "30-day lag in Sanbase"; Sanbase Pro "Ideal for advanced traders and analysts to power decisions with real-time data" at "$49 / mo", shown with "$529 / year, billed monthly" and "Bill annually - 10%", carrying "Present-day and full historical data in Sanbase"; Sanbase Max at "$249 / mo", shown with "$2700 / year, billed monthly". Also on the page: "Try Sanbase free for 14 days and get full access to all our products and features", "Hold SAN, Pay Less" with "Enjoy a 20% discount on Sanbase PRO/MAX plans", and the FAQ line "Sanbase Max is the minimum plan required for accessing the real-time API data with no restrictions or time-lag." Changed since 2026-08-07: the plan cards no longer list API call allowances or the "Real-time API data with 30-day lag" line; API limits are now documented on the vendor's academy plans page (https:// academy .santiment .net /products-and-plans /sanapi-plans /), which gives Free and Pro the same restricted-metric terms (1 year of history, 30 days lag) and Max no realtime restriction. Business API plans sit behind a script-rendered "For Business (API)" tab and are not quoted here. Worked example (ChainChoice arithmetic, not a page figure): Pro at 49 a month for 12 months is 588 dollars; the page's annual figure of 529 is that sum less 10 percent, rounded.Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDSantiment (Sanbase / SanAPI) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 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
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI): 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
- 7 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #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 sentiment_analytics:santiment:2026.10.18:68454499df99
Are you Santiment (Sanbase / SanAPI)? 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.