Provider at a glance
- Category
- Transaction Simulation
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- scamsniffer.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 58 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Scam Sniffer
Phishing blocklist and threat API
Transaction Simulation
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 9 transaction simulation in the published ranking
58
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Scam Sniffer right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence3/10 here; Kerberus (Pocket Universe) scores 6
- Vendor survival and continuity risk4/10 here; Tenderly scores 7
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses4/10 here; Kerberus (Pocket Universe) scores 5
- Published price and true total cost7/10 here; the category best is 9
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 simulation tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Scam Sniffer cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Transactions per year
- 1k
- Monthly price
- $0
Level with the median of 4 priced transaction simulation.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Scam Sniffer?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Scam Sniffer
Compare all 4- 6Kerberus (Pocket Universe)4 points above · stronger on detection method (6 against 3)62
- 7TenderlyLevel on score · stronger on survival risk (7 against 4)58$0.00
- 9Webacy7 points below · stronger on detection method (5 against 3)51
For your setup
Find out if Scam Sniffer fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Scam Sniffer 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 simulation toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Scam Sniffer ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
303+2.886.09#9/9Loading evidence…
254+3.206.08#8/9Loading evidence…
254+3.203.07#3/9Loading evidence…
207+4.486.09#3/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Tenderly, #7
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 56–60 and ranks #7–#8
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 Scam Sniffer’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.
Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Tenderly+160#8 → #7
Vendor survival and continuity risk 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Tenderly+160#8 → #7
Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Tenderly+160#8 → #7
Published price and true total cost 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Tenderly+159#8 → #7
Published price and true total cost 7 → 1 on its ladder · Webacy passes it−651#8 → #9
Smallest climb: simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence 3 → 4 passes Tenderly, #7.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Vendor survival and continuity risk — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Published price and true total cost — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The extension matches signatures against known phishing patterns and checks sites and addresses against Scam Sniffer's blocklists; it does not run the transaction against live chain state, and real-time API lookups start at $999/month. A drainer contract deployed today on a domain registered this morning is the case a list-and-pattern approach is weakest at.
- Citation is wrong; the facts are right. The homepage carries the tier table verbatim (Open Source "$0" / "Domain blacklist, updated daily"; Standard "from $999 /month" / "Real-time lookups over API for a single product"; Enterprise "Custom") and "258K+ domains & malicious addresses on the blocklists · updated continuously" — but contains no fee-removal wording, no 0.25% figure and no $400 cap. All three appear verbatim at docs.scamsniffer.io/docs/fee, which states "Starting from March 2025, all DEX transactions are free of charge" and documents the prior 0.25% rate on Uniswap and PancakeSwap from v0.0.45 with a "$400 per address per month" cap. Read again 14 September 2026: the pricing note now quotes the fee wording from docs.scamsniffer.io/docs/fee.
Competitive position
Where Scam Sniffer 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 / 914.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#8 / 910.3 of 30 · best 19.1
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Scam Sniffer leads
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses#3 / 9
- Published price and true total cost#3 / 9
Where it trails
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence#9 / 9
- Vendor survival and continuity risk#8 / 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.
Tenderly#7 of 9 · score 58 · same score
Scam Sniffer leads on
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses4 vs 2
- Published price and true total cost7 vs 3
Tenderly leads on
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence5 vs 3
- Vendor survival and continuity risk7 vs 4
Largest single reason Tenderly is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Tenderly is the same.
Kerberus (Pocket Universe)#6 of 9 · score 62 · 4.0 points ahead
Scam Sniffer leads on
- Published price and true total cost7 vs 3
Kerberus (Pocket Universe) leads on
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence6 vs 3
- Vendor survival and continuity risk5 vs 4
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses5 vs 4
Largest single reason Kerberus (Pocket Universe) is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Kerberus (Pocket Universe) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Webacy#9 of 9 · score 51 · 7.0 points behind
Scam Sniffer leads on
- Vendor survival and continuity risk4 vs 3
- Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses4 vs 2
- Published price and true total cost7 vs 2
Webacy leads on
- Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence5 vs 3
Largest single reason Scam Sniffer is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: Webacy has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 58 · gap 23.0Why MetaMask Transaction Shield ranks above Scam Sniffer
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; a row-above bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (22.9) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisMetaMask Transaction ShieldGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.319.1−22.9, 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 criterionThisMetaMask Transaction ShieldPoints
Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence · w3038−4.80, worse
Vendor survival and continuity risk · w2548−3.20, worse
Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses · w2547−2.40, worse
Published price and true total cost · w2079−1.28, worse
Net5881−23.0≈
Your scenario
What Scam Sniffer costs on your 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
Monthly price · published rate$0
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 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.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.004 of 9 rows priced · Scam Sniffer at the median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · GoPlus SecurityScam Sniffer costs the same · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with GoPlus Security
5 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 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 #7 to #8 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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependencestrength 3 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 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.Vendor survival and continuity riskstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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.Verifiable performance and what happens when it missesstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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 true total coststrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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
- Execution failure (Scam Sniffer 4/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Verifiable performance and what happens when it misses · 25%
- Exit failure (Scam Sniffer 4/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Vendor survival and continuity risk · 25%
- Information failure (Scam Sniffer 3/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Simulation depth vs. blocklist dependence · 30%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Published price and true total cost (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Data/API on scamsniffer.io (read 22 October 2026): Open source "$0" — "Domain blacklist, updated daily" (public GitHub database); Standard "from $999 /month" — "Real-time lookups over API for a single product. Priced by query volume."; Enterprise "Custom". Browser extension (scamsniffer.io/extension): Free "$0" with "Monthly Limited Detections"; Premium (enabled by default) "0.25% fee on selected DEX trades. Currently Free". The fee doc confirms "Starting from March 2025, all DEX transactions are free of charge" (previously 0.25% on Uniswap and PancakeSwap trades, capped at "$400 per address per month").Scam Sniffer — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDScam Sniffer — official pricing page ↗ · 22 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
- Free extension and API offered worldwide; Scam Sniffer's Terms of Use (scamsniffer.io/terms, "Effective Date: Feb 1 2023", read 22 October 2026) name no country. Their only geographic limit is the prohibited-use clause on "sanctions programs administered in any of the countries where Scam Sniffer conducts business, including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC")".
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Scam Sniffer: 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
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 58, #8 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 transaction_simulation:scamsniffer:2026.10.18:e0a7c268e338
Are you Scam Sniffer? 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.