Provider at a glance
- Category
- Block Explorers
- Entity
- All 4 Tenderly products
- Official website
- tenderly.co
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 68 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Tenderly
EVM debugger and transaction inspector
Block Explorers
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 9 block explorers in the published ranking
68
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Tenderly right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Independence from the chain8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What works without paying4/10 here; mempool.space scores 9
- Data completeness & indexing lag4/10 here; Blockscout scores 5
- Contract verification support5/10 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 Tenderly cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Tenderly?
- 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 Tenderly
Compare all 4- 2Etherscan8 points above · stronger on verification (8 against 5)76
- 3Blockscout8 points above · stronger on free usability (6 against 4)76
- 4mempool.space4 points above · stronger on free usability (9 against 4)72
For your setup
Find out if Tenderly fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Tenderly 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 this rank
Why Tenderly 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 (16.1 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
304+3.844.09#4/9Loading evidence…
264+3.334.08#3/9Loading evidence…
245+3.845.08#5/9Loading evidence…
208+5.127.08#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind mempool.space, #4
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 66–70 and stays #5
Evidence4 of 4 scoredno receipt file for this category
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Tenderly’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 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes mempool.space+272#5 → #4
Data completeness & indexing lag 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes mempool.space+373#5 → #4
Contract verification support 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes mempool.space+373#5 → #4
Independence from the chain 8 → 0 on its ladder · Solscan passes it−858#5 → #6
Smallest climb: what works without paying 4 → 6 passes mempool.space, #4.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Independence from the chain — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What works without paying — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Data completeness & indexing lag — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Contract verification support — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Paywalled automation plus fully withdrawn price transparency plus 89+ logged outages since November 2024 and a visible five-incident cluster in…
- The free tier is genuinely useful for manual inspection but has zero API access — automation is entirely paywalled behind a quote.
- 2026-07-16 (2h40m, login/registration); 2026-06-25 (1h45m, alert/action notification lag); 2026-06-24 (49m, monitoring lag on Arbitrum…
Competitive position
Where Tenderly 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#5 / 912.1 of 30 · best 16.9
Friction#4 / 94.0 of 10 · best 5.3
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Tenderly leads
- Data completeness & indexing lag#3 / 9
- Independence from the chain#1 / 9
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.
mempool.space#4 of 9 · score 72 · 4.0 points ahead
Tenderly leads on
- Contract verification support5 vs 1
mempool.space leads on
- What works without paying9 vs 4
Largest single reason mempool.space is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: mempool.space has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Blockscout#3 of 9 · score 76 · 8.0 points ahead
Tenderly leads on
- Independence from the chain8 vs 7
Blockscout leads on
- What works without paying6 vs 4
- Data completeness & indexing lag5 vs 4
- Contract verification support6 vs 5
Largest single reason Blockscout is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Blockscout has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Etherscan#2 of 9 · score 76 · 8.0 points ahead
Tenderly leads onNo scored criterion
Etherscan leads on
- Contract verification support8 vs 5
Largest single reason Etherscan is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Etherscan has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
84 vs 68 · gap 16.0Why Routescan ranks above Tenderly
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 16.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRoutescanGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.116.9−12.5, worse
Friction · 12% weight4.05.3−3.4, worse
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisRoutescanPoints
What works without paying · w3049−4.80, worse
Data completeness & indexing lag · w2648−3.33, worse
Contract verification support · w2457−1.54, worse
Independence from the chain · w2083+3.20, better
Net6884−16.0
Your scenario
Tenderly 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 #5 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 4 · 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 4 · 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 5 · 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 8 · 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% (Tenderly 4/10)Scored by Independence from the chain · 20% (Tenderly 8/10)
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
- Re-read from tenderly.co/pricing on 2026-09-14: exactly two options are shown and NO paid price is published. 'Tenderly Free' — $0, 'No credit card. No trial. Free, indefinitely.' — covering single-chain transaction and wallet search, single-transaction UI simulation, step-through debugger with gas profiler, full error and stack traces, call traces, and asset-transfer/token-interface detail — but the page states explicitly 'UI access — Use Tenderly in the browser. No API access on Free.' 'Tenderly Console' — custom, contact-sales, marketed as 'Scope what your team actually uses. One contract. One invoice.'Tenderly — verified source ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDTenderly — 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
- The free tier is genuinely useful for manual inspection but has zero API access — automation is entirely paywalled behind a quote.
- Availability note
- The free tier is genuinely useful for manual inspection but has zero API access — automation is entirely paywalled behind a quote.
Legal entity on file: Tenderly, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Tenderly: 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 68, #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 block_explorers:tenderly:2026.10.18:cfd488cb896c
Are you Tenderly? 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.