Provider at a glance
- Category
- Trading Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- tradingview.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
TradingView
Charting platform
Trading Tools
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 trading tools in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is TradingView right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7/10; the category best is 8
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?8/10, the category best
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?7/10; the category best is 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 crypto trading tool shows where it lands for you.
What will TradingView cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is TradingView?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to TradingView
Compare all 4- 2CryptoQuant5 points below · weaker on what the affordable tier refuses (6 against 9)76
- 3CoinGlass5 points below · weaker on when yesterdays number changes (4 against 7)76
- 4Laevitas6 points below · stronger on when yesterdays number changes (8 against 7)75
For your setup
Find out if TradingView fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where TradingView 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 crypto trading toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why TradingView ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (24.8 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
327+7.177.08#2/7Loading evidence…
268+6.668.08#1/7Loading evidence…
249+6.916.09#1/7Loading evidence…
187+4.035.08#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+5over CryptoQuant, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 80–81 and stays #1
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 TradingView’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.
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? 7 → 4 on its ladder · CryptoQuant passes it−379#1 → #3
Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? 8 → 5 on its ladder · CryptoQuant passes it−380#1 → #2
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? 9 → 6 on its ladder · CryptoQuant passes it−380#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? — 8/10, the category best
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? — 9/10, the category best
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- The tier you can afford is not the tier you are allowed to buy. TradingView's pricing page carries one line — 'Only the Ultimate plan is available for professional users.' — and the help centre defines professional as anyone using market data 'to make investment decisions on behalf of an employer', anyone 'registered with a financial regulatory body (e.g. FINRA, NFA, CSA etc)', anyone paying from 'company funds or business credit lines', and anyone who 'cannot confirm every single one of these above conditions'. For the buyer this category describes — a paid research seat inside a firm — the €12.95, €29.95 and €59.95 rungs are legally closed and the real entry price is €199.95/mo, €2,399.40 a year. Worse, misclassification is retroactive and self-executing: Article 10 of the Terms says 'you will be liable for the difference between the "Non-Professional" and "Professional" subscription rates ... retroactively from the date you initiated your subscription' and 'we reserve the right to automatically invoice you for this difference and charge the associated amount to your on-file payment method.' And no tier at any price lets the number leave the screen: the licence 'explicitly prohibits any form of non-display usage', naming 'price referencing', 'algorithmic decision-making' and 'using data in operations control or risk management programs' — so the risk committee can look at the chart, but the number cannot go into the model.
Competitive position
Where TradingView 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 718.6 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where TradingView leads
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?#2 / 7
- Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?#1 / 7
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?#1 / 7
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?#2 / 7
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.
CryptoQuant#2 of 7 · score 76 · 5.0 points behind
TradingView leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9 vs 6
CryptoQuant leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason TradingView is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: CryptoQuant has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CoinGlass#3 of 7 · score 76 · 5.0 points behind
TradingView leads on
- If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?7 vs 6
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?7 vs 4
CoinGlass leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason TradingView is ahead: published criteria (+5.5 display points).Scenario cost: CoinGlass has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Laevitas#4 of 7 · score 75 · 6.0 points behind
TradingView leads on
- What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?9 vs 4
Laevitas leads on
- When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?8 vs 7
Largest single reason TradingView is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Laevitas has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
81 vs 76 · gap 5.0Why TradingView ranks above CryptoQuant
DimensionThisCryptoQuantGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.616.8+4.7, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisCryptoQuantPoints
What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? · w2496+2.30, better
Net8176+5.0
Your scenario
TradingView is not priced for this scenario
Taker fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputTrading
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 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 #1 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working?strength 7 · weight 32Report an error—28 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.Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports?strength 8 · weight 26Report an error—28 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.What does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me?strength 9 · weight 24Report an error—28 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.When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out?strength 7 · weight 18Report an error—28 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
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by If my risk committee asks where this number came from, can I show them the working? · 32% (TradingView 7/10)Scored by Which venues are inside this number, and do you tell me where it under-reports? · 26% (TradingView 8/10)Scored by When you change the number I traded on last quarter, do I ever find out? · 18% (TradingView 7/10)
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 does the tier I can actually afford refuse to give me? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Read on https://
www .tradingview .com /pricing / on 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200), annual-billing view (the page default; this fetch was served EUR). Free tier: "€ 0 forever" "No credit card needed". "Essential" — "Special price: €12.95 / mo", billed annually, "Save €24 a year", "Try free for 30 days"; "Plus" — "Special price: €29.95 / mo", "Save €60 a year", "Try free for 30 days"; "Premium" — "Special price: €59.95 / mo", "Save €120 a year", "Try free for 30 days"; "Ultimate" — "Special price: €199.95 / mo", "Save €480 a year", "Try free for 14 days". The billing toggle reads "Save up to 17%". Annual-versus-monthly totals are given as prose on the same page: "Compared to paying monthly. Your full annual price is €155.40 against €179.40 with regular monthly payments." (Essential), "€359.40 against €419.40" (Plus), "€719.40 against €839.40" (Premium), "€2,399.40 against €2,879.40" (Ultimate). Above the ladder: "Enterprise plans Need 100+ subscriptions? Get in touch to find the best option for your business." with "Contact sales" and no price. Beneath it: "Only the Ultimate plan is available for professional users." and "TradingView, Inc. is registered for sales tax purposes in certain countries. As a result, depending on your location, a sales tax could be added to your final bill." Refund terms on the same page: "Refunds are available for annual plans only and must be requested within 14 calendar days of payment." CURRENCY CONFLICT ON THE SAME FETCH: the visible table renders EUR, while the page's embedded JSON-LD Offer objects read "price": 14.95, "priceCurrency": "USD" (sku "pro", Essential), 34.95 (sku "pro_realtime", Plus), 69.95 (sku "pro_premium", Premium) and 239.95 (sku "pro_premium_expert", Ultimate), each with "priceValidUntil": "2026-10-28". New since 2026-08-17: a fifth JSON-LD offer, "name": "Expert", "sku": "pro_expert", "price": 119.95, which matches no tier in the rendered table. Worked example (ChainChoice arithmetic, not a page figure): the four matching JSON-LD numerals equal the implied monthly-billing rates, 179.40 / 12 = 14.95, 419.40 / 12 = 34.95, 839.40 / 12 = 69.95 and 2,879.40 / 12 = 239.95. Whether a US buyer is charged in USD or a EUR equivalent could not be established without checkout.TradingView — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDTradingView — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not a chain-native product — TradingView is a charting and data terminal, but /data-coverage/ (read 17 August 2026) names DEX sources per chain: Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Polygon zkEVM, BNB chain, Avalanche, Solana, Sui, TON, TRON, zkSync, Cronos, Gnosis, Ronin, Pulsechain, Unichain, Hyperliquid
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- NO MARKET RESTRICTION FOUND — what is present is the standard eligibility representation plus a tax note, neither of which is a regional footprint. Read on https://
www .tradingview .com /policies / (17 August 2026): 'you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving TradingView services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction.' That is the ordinary sanctions/barred-person clause carried by nearly every US-operated platform; it applies everywhere and names no excluded country. Read on https:// www .tradingview .com /pricing / (17 August 2026): 'TradingView, Inc. is registered for sales tax purposes in certain countries. As a result, depending on your location, a sales tax could be added to your final bill.' — a billing consequence, not an availability limit. Governing-law language does split by residence, read on https:// www .tradingview .com /policies / (17 August 2026): 'If you are resident in a member state of the EEA or a country in which this Arbitration Agreement is prohibited by local law, this section does not apply to you ... and exclusively decided in the courts of England and Wales'. The genuine per-geography variation is in DATA, not access: https:// www .tradingview .com /data-coverage / (17 August 2026) prices real-time feeds exchange by exchange — every crypto venue row reads 'Real-time data Non-professional fees, per month €0.00' and 'Real-time data Professional fees, per month €0.00', while equity and futures venues carry fees up to '€152.00' and some rows read 'N/A' for professional access.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with TradingView: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 81, #1 of 7. 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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt trading_tools:tradingview:2026.10.18:fe3bbc501d8a
Are you TradingView? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of TradingView , on file since May 2026 — the review is separate from the score.