Provider at a glance
- Category
- Privacy Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- l2beat.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 74 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Tornado Cash
Immutable Ethereum mixer
Privacy Tools
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 privacy tools in the published ranking
74
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Tornado Cash right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7/10; the category best is 8
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage10/10, the category best
- Audit currency and admin keys6/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy2/10 here; Railgun 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 privacy tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Tornado Cash cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Tornado Cash?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Tornado Cash
Compare all 4- 1Railgun6 points above · stronger on pt compliance posture (8 against 2)80
- 3Privacy Pools (0xbow)8 points below · stronger on pt compliance posture (5 against 2)66
- 4Umbra13 points below · stronger on pt compliance posture (3 against 2)61
For your setup
Find out if Tornado Cash fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Tornado Cash 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 privacy toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Tornado Cash 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 (20.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
307+6.726.08#2/8Loading evidence…
252+1.603.08#8/8Loading evidence…
2510+8.003.510#1/8Loading evidence…
206+3.845.06#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind Railgun, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–75 and stays #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 Tornado Cash’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.
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 2 → 7 on its ladder · passes Railgun+580#2 → #1
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 7 → 2 on its ladder · Privacy Pools (0xbow) passes it−564#2 → #3
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 10 → 5 on its ladder · Privacy Pools (0xbow) passes it−566#2 → #3
Smallest climb: compliance signal without collapsing privacy 2 → 7 passes Railgun, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage — 10/10, the category best
- Audit currency and admin keys — 6/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The legal exposure here is personal, not protocol-level, and it is unresolved. Roman Storm was convicted on 6 August 2025 on one count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business; the jury hung on the money-laundering and sanctions-conspiracy counts, with a retrial reported for October 2026. There is no support channel, and L2BEAT warns that the tornado.cash website is malicious: the DAO frontend is the IPFS hash registered on tornadocash.eth, but malicious frontend updates have passed governance before, so L2BEAT advises using a publicly audited or self-audited hash. The immutability that protects you from a rug-pull also means nobody can ever patch a bug.
- The '30' is NOT a participant count. L2BEAT states the ceremony 'was publicly announced as a Phase 2 ceremony built on top of the 30th CONTRIBUTION to the Perpetual Powers of Tau ceremony'. The ceremony itself ran 1,114 contributions over 10 days (450 identified, 664 anonymous). Rewrite as: 'Phase 2 ceremony built on the 30th Perpetual Powers of Tau contribution, with 1,114 contributions of its own over 10 days.' As written the evidence makes the setup sound ~37x narrower than it was, which is an error against the provider's own interest.
- L2BEAT lists four DAO-controlled components: the 'default router for deposits and withdrawals and the official registry of supported pools', the standard UI IPFS hash registered on ENS, the TORN token itself, and registered relayers. The DEFAULT ROUTER is materially more consequential than 'registry' and is omitted — it is the contract most users transact through even though the pools behind it are immutable. Pool immutability and the 2-day timelock are confirmed.
Competitive position
Where Tornado Cash 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 / 815.1 of 30 · best 17.6
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 Tornado Cash leads
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability#2 / 8
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage#1 / 8
- Audit currency and admin keys#1 / 8
Where it trails
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy#8 / 8
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.
Railgun#1 of 8 · score 80 · 6.0 points ahead
Tornado Cash leads on
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage10 vs 7
Railgun leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability8 vs 7
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy8 vs 2
Largest single reason Railgun is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Railgun has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Privacy Pools (0xbow)#3 of 8 · score 66 · 8.0 points behind
Tornado Cash leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 6
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage10 vs 4
- Audit currency and admin keys6 vs 5
Privacy Pools (0xbow) leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy5 vs 2
Largest single reason Tornado Cash is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Privacy Pools (0xbow) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Umbra#4 of 8 · score 61 · 13.0 points behind
Tornado Cash leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 5
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage10 vs 3
Umbra leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy3 vs 2
Largest single reason Tornado Cash is ahead: published criteria (+13.0 display points).Scenario cost: Umbra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 74 · gap 6.0Why Railgun ranks above Tornado Cash
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 6.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRailgunGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.117.6−6.5, 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 criterionThisRailgunPoints
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · w3078−0.96, worse
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · w2528−4.80, worse
Live anonymity set and measurable usage · w25107+2.40, better
Net7480−6.0
Your scenario
Tornado Cash 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 15 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 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 15 September 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiabilitystrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 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.Compliance signal without collapsing privacystrength 2 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 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.Live anonymity set and measurable usagestrength 10 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 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.Audit currency and admin keysstrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 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
- Contract failure (Tornado Cash 6/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit currency and admin keys · 20%
- Verification failure (Tornado Cash 7/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Tornado Cash 2/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · 25%
- Information failure (Tornado Cash 10/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Live anonymity set and measurable usage · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No protocol-level deposit/withdrawal fees; relayer fees are negotiated off-chain.Tornado Cash — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDTornado Cash — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 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 Tornado Cash: 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
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 74, #2 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt privacy_tools:tornado_cash_mixer:2026.10.18:33d51dce1302
Are you Tornado Cash? 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.