Provider at a glance
- Category
- Enterprise Crypto Accounting
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- wag3s.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 72 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Wag3s
Web3 finance operating system
Enterprise Crypto Accounting
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 enterprise crypto accounting in the published ranking
72
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Wag3s right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Posting into the ledger the company already runs7/10; the category best is 8
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL7/10 here; TRES Finance scores 9
- Third-party assurance and period controls4/10 here; TRES Finance 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 crypto subledger shows where it lands for you.
What will Wag3s cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Wag3s?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Wag3s
Compare all 4- 3TRES Finance5 points above · stronger on assurance and period control (8 against 4)77
- 4CryptioLevel on score · stronger on assurance and period control (6 against 4)72
- 6Ledgible8 points below · stronger on assurance and period control (6 against 4)64
For your setup
Find out if Wag3s fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Wag3s 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 subledgerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Wag3s 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 (22.3 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
327+7.177.08#3/7Loading evidence…
269+7.498.010#2/7Loading evidence…
247+5.388.09#5/7Loading evidence…
184+2.308.09#7/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Cryptio, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 70–73 and ranks #4–#5
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 Wag3s’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.
Posting into the ledger the company already runs 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Cryptio+173#5 → #4
Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Cryptio+173#5 → #4
Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Cryptio+173#5 → #4
Third-party assurance and period controls 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Cryptio+173#5 → #4
Posting into the ledger the company already runs 7 → 3 on its ladder · Ledgible passes it−464#5 → #6
Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured 9 → 4 on its ladder · Ledgible passes it−563#5 → #6
Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL 7 → 1 on its ladder · Ledgible passes it−663#5 → #7
Smallest climb: posting into the ledger the company already runs 7 → 8 passes Cryptio, #4.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Posting into the ledger the company already runs — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Third-party assurance and period controls — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Wag3s documents best the two enterprise GLs its own coverage list does not present as shipped. The role-level Sage Intacct and 5-step NetSuite procedures are published, yet https://wag3s.io/ledger marks "Sage (in discussion)" and "NetSuite (in discussion)" beside unmarked QuickBooks Online, Xero and Stripe, https://wag3s.io/integrations puts no status marker on any of its 10 ERP entries, and https://wag3s.io/accountants lists NetSuite and Sage as export targets outright (read 2026-09-04). Settle before signing: a live Sage Intacct or NetSuite sandbox posting; the "sample SuiteScript role" the NetSuite FAQ places "in the integration docs" (/docs 301s to /blog); a Wag3s-side period lock; and the SOC 2 Type II report /trust marks "In progress".
Competitive position
Where Wag3s 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#4 / 716.8 of 30 · best 20.8
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 Wag3s leads
- Posting into the ledger the company already runs#3 / 7
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured#2 / 7
Where it trails
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL#5 / 7
- Third-party assurance and period controls#7 / 7
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.
Cryptio#4 of 7 · score 72 · same score
Wag3s leads on
- Posting into the ledger the company already runs7 vs 6
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured9 vs 8
Cryptio leads on
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL8 vs 7
- Third-party assurance and period controls6 vs 4
Scenario cost: Cryptio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
TRES Finance#3 of 7 · score 77 · 5.0 points ahead
Wag3s leads on
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured9 vs 8
TRES Finance leads on
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL9 vs 7
- Third-party assurance and period controls8 vs 4
Largest single reason TRES Finance is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: TRES Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Ledgible#6 of 7 · score 64 · 8.0 points behind
Wag3s leads on
- Posting into the ledger the company already runs7 vs 6
- Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured9 vs 5
- Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL7 vs 6
Ledgible leads on
- Third-party assurance and period controls6 vs 4
Largest single reason Wag3s is ahead: published criteria (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Ledgible has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 72 · gap 10.0Why Cryptoworth ranks above Wag3s
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 10.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCryptoworthGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.820.8−10.4, 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 criterionThisCryptoworthPoints
Posting into the ledger the company already runs · w3278−1.02, worse
Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL · w2479−1.54, worse
Third-party assurance and period controls · w1849−2.88, worse
Net7282−10.0
Your scenario
Wag3s 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 30 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 30 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #4 to #5 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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Posting into the ledger the company already runsstrength 7 · weight 32Report an error—30 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.Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configuredstrength 9 · weight 26Report an error—30 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.Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GLstrength 7 · weight 24Report an error—30 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.Third-party assurance and period controlsstrength 4 · weight 18Report an error—30 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 Cost-basis method and measurement policy, as configured · 26% (Wag3s 9/10)Scored by Reconciling the subledger against the chain and against the GL · 24% (Wag3s 7/10)Scored by Third-party assurance and period controls · 18% (Wag3s 4/10)
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: Posting into the ledger the company already runs (32%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Free during Alpha. https://
wag3s .io /ledger (read 30 September 2026): "Wag3s Ledger is free for every team during the Alpha phase. No transaction cap, no entity cap, no chain cap. Paid plans will be introduced after Alpha ends. Alpha-cohort customers get notice, a grace period, and preferred pricing." wag3s.io/pricing redirects to the homepage pricing block (https:// wag3s .io / #pricing), where the "Starter", "Grow" and "Business" tiers each read "Free". No post-Alpha price is published.Wag3s — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDWag3s — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Assurance is published as targeted, and said plainly. https://
wag3s .io /trust (read 4 September 2026, "Last updated: April 15, 2026") lists "SOC 2 Type II" under "AICPA Trust Services Criteria" with the status chip "In progress" and, beside it, "Target: 2026-Q4". - Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, zkSync Era, Scroll, Linea, Blast, Starknet, Mantle, Gnosis Chain, Bitcoin, Solana, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Tron, Polkadot, Cardano, Stellar, Sui, Aptos, Algorand, NEAR, Hedera, Tezos, Sonic, Ronin, Cosmos Hub, Celestia
- 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 Wag3s: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 72, #5 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.
- 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 enterprise_accounting:wag3s:2026.10.18:47e06eb350ac
Are you Wag3s? 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.