Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallet Screening
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- scorechain.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in November 2026.
Scorechain
Blockchain analytics from the EU
Wallet Screening
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 9 wallet screening in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Scorechain right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Attribution defensibility4/10 here; Crystal Intelligence scores 6
- False-positive posture & appeal path2/10 here; Crystal Intelligence scores 4
- Coverage for your stack4/10 here; Crystal Intelligence scores 7
- Access & price transparency8/10 here; MistTrack (SlowMist) scores 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 wallet screening tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Scorechain cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Scorechain?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Scorechain
Compare all 4- 4MistTrack (SlowMist)2 points above · stronger on access cost (10 against 8)64$20
- 6Crystal IntelligenceLevel on score · stronger on coverage (7 against 4)62
- 7Merkle Science6 points below · stronger on false positive (4 against 2)56
For your setup
Find out if Scorechain fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Scorechain 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 wallet screening toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Scorechain ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.7 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
304+3.844.09#5/9Loading evidence…
262+1.664.06#7/9Loading evidence…
244+3.074.09#5/9Loading evidence…
208+5.123.010#2/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind MistTrack (SlowMist), #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–64 and ranks #5–#6
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 Scorechain’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.
Attribution defensibility 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes MistTrack (SlowMist)+266#5 → #4
False-positive posture & appeal path 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes MistTrack (SlowMist)+265#5 → #4
Coverage for your stack 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes MistTrack (SlowMist)+265#5 → #4
Access & price transparency 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes MistTrack (SlowMist)+264#5 → #4
Attribution defensibility 4 → 3 on its ladder · Crystal Intelligence passes it−160#5 → #6
False-positive posture & appeal path 2 → 1 on its ladder · Crystal Intelligence passes it−160#5 → #6
Coverage for your stack 4 → 3 on its ladder · Crystal Intelligence passes it−160#5 → #6
Smallest climb: attribution defensibility 4 → 6 passes MistTrack (SlowMist), #4.
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
- Attribution defensibility — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- False-positive posture & appeal path — 2/10 against a category best of 6/10
- Coverage for your stack — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Access & price transparency — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Coverage, not credibility. A footprint Scorechain states as 21+, 23 or 25+ chains means assets moving through chains Scorechain does not index are invisible to it, producing false…
- The most genuinely hybrid access in the category. Enterprise screening and monitoring are demo-gated with no published price.
- No breach, enforcement action, wind-down, acquisition or regional exit found.
Competitive position
Where Scorechain 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#6 / 910.3 of 30 · best 15.6
Friction#5 / 90.7 of 10 · best 2.7
Trust record#4 / 94.8 of 8 · best 5.6
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Scorechain leads
- Access & price transparency#2 / 9
Where it trails
- False-positive posture & appeal path#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.
Crystal Intelligence#6 of 9 · score 62 · same score
Scorechain leads on
- Access & price transparency8 vs 2
Crystal Intelligence leads on
- Attribution defensibility6 vs 4
- False-positive posture & appeal path4 vs 2
- Coverage for your stack7 vs 4
Largest single reason Scorechain is ahead: trust record (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Crystal Intelligence has no verified pricing for this scenario.
MistTrack (SlowMist)#4 of 9 · score 64 · 2.0 points ahead
Scorechain leads on
- Attribution defensibility4 vs 3
MistTrack (SlowMist) leads on
- Access & price transparency10 vs 8
Largest single reason MistTrack (SlowMist) is ahead: friction (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Scorechain has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Merkle Science#7 of 9 · score 56 · 6.0 points behind
Scorechain leads on
- Attribution defensibility4 vs 3
- Access & price transparency8 vs 2
Merkle Science leads on
- False-positive posture & appeal path4 vs 2
Largest single reason Scorechain is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Merkle Science has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 62 · gap 21.0Why TRM Labs ranks above Scorechain
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 21.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTRM LabsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.315.6−13.8, worse
Friction · 12% weight0.72.7−5.2, worse
Trust record · 9% weight4.85.6−2.1, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisTRM LabsPoints
Attribution defensibility · w3048−3.84, worse
False-positive posture & appeal path · w2626−3.33, worse
Coverage for your stack · w2449−3.84, worse
Access & price transparency · w2082+3.84, better
Net6283−21.0
Your scenario
Scorechain 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 3 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 9 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
7 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 3 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #6 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Attribution defensibilitystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—3 November 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.False-positive posture & appeal pathstrength 2 · weight 26Report an error—3 November 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.Coverage for your stackstrength 4 · weight 24Report an error—3 November 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.Access & price transparencystrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—3 November 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 Attribution defensibility · 30% (Scorechain 4/10)Scored by False-positive posture & appeal path · 26% (Scorechain 2/10)
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: Coverage for your stack (24%), Access & price transparency (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Two-tier reality, and the enterprise half is the weaker one. The consumer product, Scorechain AI (scorechain.ai), read 3 November 2026, publishes a genuine self-serve rate card: "Start with 5 free wallet checks", then credit packs — "Growth 80 Credits €149 €1.88 per check", "Pro 250 Credits €399 €1.60 per check", "Enterprise 1,000 Credits €999 €1.00 per check". A "Basic Report, 1 credit"; a "Full Report, 24 credits", so a full wallet intelligence report costs roughly 24 to 45 euros depending on pack size (worked example: 24 credits x €1.00 to 24 credits x €1.88). That 24x multiplier is the cost layer buyers miss. "No subscription. Credits never expire. Pay with card or crypto." The enterprise platform has no published price; Scorechain's pricing page says "We'll work with you to tailor a plan". Re-read 3 November 2026.Scorechain — verified source ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDScorechain — verified source ↗ · 3 November 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
- The most genuinely hybrid access in the category. Enterprise screening and monitoring are demo-gated with no published price.
- Availability note
- The most genuinely hybrid access in the category. Enterprise screening and monitoring are demo-gated with no published price. Scorechain's Terms and Conditions (scorechain.com/terms-and-conditions, "Version 1.7 – Last updated: 25/09/2026"), read 3 November 2026, restrict the services in section 18.1 for "any person, entity or body located in, or ordinarily resident in, Belarus, North Korea (DPRK), Iran, Syria, or in the non-government controlled territories of Ukraine (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson oblasts)" and for "the Government of the Russian Federation, or any legal person, entity or body established in the Russian Federation, where the provision of the Services would be restricted under Regulation (EU) No 833/2014". In addition, under section 18.5, Scorechain does not make Scorechain AI or the Scorechain Bot available, "as a matter of its own risk-based commercial policy rather than a legal obligation, to persons located in, or ordinarily resident in, the following jurisdictions: Afghanistan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Yemen."
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Scorechain: 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
- 3 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 62, #5 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 wallet_screening:scorechain:2026.10.18:8a4a1bd0c003
Are you Scorechain? 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.