Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Storage
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- walrus.xyz
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Walrus
Blob storage on Sui
Decentralised Storage
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 decentralised storage in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $2.76 your cost/yr
Is Walrus right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)2/10 here; Storj scores 7
- Durability: contractual or aspirational6/10 here; the category best is 8
- Retrieval cost and read path6/10 here; Storj scores 8
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)5/10 here; Arweave 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 storage network shows where it lands for you.
What will Walrus cost you?
$2.76 your cost/yr
- Usage per month
- 10
- Price per unit
- $0.023
$169 below the median of 6 priced decentralised storage.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Walrus?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Walrus
Compare all 4- 3Storj5 points above · stronger on verified cost per tb year (7 against 2)67$840
- 4Arweave1 point above · stronger on exit and continuity risk (8 against 5)63
- 6Pinata10 points below · stronger on verified cost per tb year (5 against 2)52$248
For your setup
Find out if Walrus fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Walrus 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 storage networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Walrus 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 (14.7 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
302+1.925.010#7/7Loading evidence…
306+5.765.08#3/7Loading evidence…
206+3.845.08#2/7Loading evidence…
205+3.204.08#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Arweave, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–64 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 Walrus’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.
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Arweave+164#5 → #4
Durability: contractual or aspirational 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Arweave+164#5 → #4
Retrieval cost and read path 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Arweave+163#5 → #4
What happens when you stop paying (or they do) 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Arweave+163#5 → #4
Durability: contractual or aspirational 6 → 0 on its ladder · Pinata passes it−651#5 → #6
Smallest climb: verified cost per TB-year (normalised) 2 → 3 passes Arweave, #4.
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
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Durability: contractual or aspirational — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Retrieval cost and read path — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do) — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The advertised $0.023/GB/month is charged on a 4.5x-expanded encoded blob plus a fixed 64 MB of per-blob metadata, so a 1 MB file bills as ~68 MB and a TB of real data costs ~$1,240 a year, not ~$276.
Competitive position
Where Walrus 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#5 / 711.0 of 30 · best 18.0
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 Walrus leads
- Durability: contractual or aspirational#3 / 7
- Retrieval cost and read path#2 / 7
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)#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.
Arweave#4 of 7 · score 63 · 1.0 point ahead
Walrus leads on
- Durability: contractual or aspirational6 vs 4
- Retrieval cost and read path6 vs 5
Arweave leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)3 vs 2
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)8 vs 5
Largest single reason Arweave is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Arweave has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Storj#3 of 7 · score 67 · 5.0 points ahead
Walrus leads on
- Durability: contractual or aspirational6 vs 5
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)5 vs 1
Storj leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)7 vs 2
- Retrieval cost and read path8 vs 6
Largest single reason Storj is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Storj is +$837 against Walrus.
Pinata#6 of 7 · score 52 · 10.0 points behind
Walrus leads on
- Durability: contractual or aspirational6 vs 2
- Retrieval cost and read path6 vs 3
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)5 vs 2
Pinata leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)5 vs 2
Largest single reason Walrus is ahead: published criteria (+9.4 display points).Scenario cost: Pinata is +$246 against Walrus.
Against the leader
80 vs 62 · gap 18.0Why Filecoin ranks above Walrus
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 18.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisFilecoinGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.018.0−18.2, 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 criterionThisFilecoinPoints
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) · w3029−6.72, worse
Durability: contractual or aspirational · w3068−1.92, worse
What happens when you stop paying (or they do) · w2056−0.64, worse
Net6280−18.0
Your scenario
What Walrus costs on your 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
Price per unit · published rate$0.023
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 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.
$2.76
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1726 of 7 rows priced · Walrus −$169 vs median
Cheapest priced$2.76 · WalrusWalrus is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
1 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 22 October 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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)strength 2 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 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.Durability: contractual or aspirationalstrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 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.Retrieval cost and read pathstrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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 happens when you stop paying (or they do)strength 5 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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
- Liveness failure (Walrus 6/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Durability: contractual or aspirational · 30%
- Exit failure (Walrus 5/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What happens when you stop paying (or they do) · 20%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) (30%), Retrieval cost and read path (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Walrus docs storage-costs page (docs.wal.app, read 22 October 2026): "Storage on Walrus is paid in WAL but priced at a fixed rate of $0.023/GB/month." Billing is on encoded not original size: "Walrus bills you on the blob's encoded size, not the size of your original file. The encoded size is about 4.5x the original blob plus a fixed 64 MB of per-blob metadata." The page's own worked example: a 50 GB file for 1 year is "roughly $62" (arithmetic from it: approx $1,240 per TB-year). Prepayment ceiling: "The maximum duration you can purchase in advance is approximately 2 years." An epoch is 2 weeks on Mainnet; SUI gas is charged separately: "Storing a blob involves up to 3 onchain Sui transactions, each of which incurs SUI gas fees."Walrus — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDWalrus — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 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
- The protocol is permissionless and, in the Walrus Foundation's words, "operated by independent storage nodes that we do not control". The Foundation's Terms of Service (docs.wal.app/docs/legal/walrus_general_tos.md, 'Last updated: 1 September 2026', read 22 October 2026) govern its "Interface" (the site and Foundation services) and require that "you are not in or residing in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Russia, and the Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions of Ukraine, or any other country or jurisdiction to which the Cayman Islands, the United Kingdom, United States, the United Nations Security Council, or the European Union embargoes goods or imposes similar sanctions".
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Walrus: 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
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 62, #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 decentralised_storage:walrus:2026.10.18:e8784679ac71
Are you Walrus? 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.