Provider at a glance
- Category
- Oracles
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- stork.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 45 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Stork
Pull oracle for perpetual DEXs
Oracles
#9 Overall
Ranked #9 of 9 oracles in the published ranking
45
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Stork right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Incident transparency1/10 here; Chronicle Protocol scores 2
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record3/10 here; Chronicle Protocol scores 7
- Failure-mode architecture2/10 here; Chronicle Protocol scores 5
- Adoption as stress-testing4/10 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 blockchain oracle shows where it lands for you.
What will Stork cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Stork?
- 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 Stork
Compare all 4- 6Chronicle Protocol14 points above · stronger on exploit record (7 against 3)59
- 7Switchboard6 points above · stronger on incident transparency (2 against 1)51
- 8Supra4 points above · stronger on exploit record (5 against 3)49
For your setup
Find out if Stork fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Stork 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 blockchain oracleNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Stork ranks #9
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (7.6 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
301+0.962.010#8/9Loading evidence…
263+2.505.08#7/9Loading evidence…
242+1.544.07#8/9Loading evidence…
204+2.565.010#6/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Supra, #8
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 43–47 and stays #9
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Stork’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.
Incident transparency 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes Supra+351#9 → #8
Exploited-via-this-oracle record 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Supra+350#9 → #8
Failure-mode architecture 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Supra+350#9 → #8
Adoption as stress-testing 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Supra+450#9 → #8
Smallest climb: incident transparency 1 → 4 passes Supra, #8.
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
- Incident transparency — 1/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Failure-mode architecture — 2/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Adoption as stress-testing — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Zero external verifiability on the precise dimension it sells: behaviour under stress.
- Partnership-led and contact-sales. SDKs, docs and an example data portal are public, but case studies describe co-designed feeds and pre-launch…
- No data failure attributable to Stork found as of 2026-08-03; no public incident log or status page exists against which to check.
Competitive position
Where Stork 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#9 / 95.7 of 30 · best 15.2
Friction#4 / 90.7 of 10 · best 3.3
Trust record#8 / 93.2 of 8 · best 5.6
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Stork leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Incident transparency#8 / 9
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record#7 / 9
- Failure-mode architecture#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.
Supra#8 of 9 · score 49 · 4.0 points ahead
Stork leads on
- Adoption as stress-testing4 vs 2
Supra leads on
- Incident transparency2 vs 1
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record5 vs 3
- Failure-mode architecture3 vs 2
Largest single reason Supra is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Supra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Switchboard#7 of 9 · score 51 · 6.0 points ahead
Stork leads on
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record3 vs 2
Switchboard leads on
- Incident transparency2 vs 1
- Failure-mode architecture3 vs 2
Largest single reason Switchboard is ahead: trust record (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Switchboard has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Chronicle Protocol#6 of 9 · score 59 · 14.0 points ahead
Stork leads on
- Adoption as stress-testing4 vs 1
Chronicle Protocol leads on
- Incident transparency2 vs 1
- Exploited-via-this-oracle record7 vs 3
- Failure-mode architecture5 vs 2
Largest single reason Chronicle Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+9.1 display points).Scenario cost: Chronicle Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
83 vs 45 · gap 38.0Why Pyth Network ranks above Stork
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 38.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisPyth NetworkGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight5.715.2−24.7, worse
Friction · 12% weight0.73.3−6.8, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisPyth NetworkPoints
Incident transparency · w30110−8.64, worse
Exploited-via-this-oracle record · w2634−0.83, worse
Adoption as stress-testing · w2049−3.20, worse
Net4583−38.0
Your scenario
Stork is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10
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 #9 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
Incident transparencystrength 1 · 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.Exploited-via-this-oracle recordstrength 3 · 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.Failure-mode architecturestrength 2 · 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.Adoption as stress-testingstrength 4 · 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
- Oracle failure: a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.Scored by Incident transparency · 30% (Stork 1/10)Scored by Exploited-via-this-oracle record · 26% (Stork 3/10)Scored by Failure-mode architecture · 24% (Stork 2/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, 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: Adoption as stress-testing (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No published price and no public rate card. Re-checked 14 September 2026 on the marketing site and its sitemap and on docs.stork.network. The docs say 'Interested? Contact Stork Labs to determine appropriate feeds that meet your requirements. <sales@stork.network>', and 'Chain deployments and asset additions are available upon request.' No subscription price, per-update fee, tier structure or free tier is stated on any page checked. Access and pricing are contact-sales.Stork — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDStork — 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
- Partnership-led and contact-sales. SDKs, docs and an example data portal are public, but case studies describe co-designed feeds and pre-launch rapid-listing arrangements with named DEX partners rather than open self-serve provisioning.
- Availability note
- Partnership-led and contact-sales. SDKs, docs and an example data portal are public, but case studies describe co-designed feeds and pre-launch rapid-listing arrangements with named DEX partners rather than open self-serve provisioning.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Stork: 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 45, #9 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 oracles:stork:2026.10.18:894df2ea864b
Are you Stork? 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.