Skip to main content

Head-to-head · Trading Bots

Bitsgap vs Hummingbot Bitsgap leads by 2 points.

Bitsgap scores 2 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability. Bitsgap ranks #4 and Hummingbot #5 of 9 published trading bots. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.

Bitsgap63
Hummingbot61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #5 of 9
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot 4 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-BITSGAP-VS-HUMMINGBOT-ccf00e7b
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Bitsgap leads by 2 points

Bitsgap scores 2 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability.

Bitsgap #4 of 963
Hummingbot #5 of 961
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termBitsgap leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Hummingbot on 3. The terms sum to the gap.
TermBitsgapHummingbotWeightPoints
Custody4/109/107.2−9.4for Hummingbot−4.8 of 32
True cost6/109/106.2−4.9for Hummingbot−2.5 of 32
Capability6/108/105.8−3.0for Hummingbot−1.5 of 32
Reliability7/105/104.8+2.5for Bitsgap+1.3 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension201420+15.6for Bitsgap
FrictionScore dimension2.70.710+5.2for Bitsgap
Measured dataScore dimension6.98.318−3.6for Hummingbot
Net of the terms+2.4
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+2.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6361+2.0

Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.

  • Bitsgap's lead rests on lighter criteria: Hummingbot is ahead on custody, which carries more weight (30) than any criterion Bitsgap leads on (20).
Quick facts

At a glance

FactBitsgapHummingbot
PricingSnapshotBasic $29/mo, Advanced $69/mo, Pro $149/mo at monthly billing; annual billing shows $23 / $55 / $119 a month. A genuine free plan exists — 3 COMBO bots on Evedex, 20 active bots in demo, unlimited manual trading — alongside a 7-day PRO trial with no card. Re-read 2026-09-09: every tier had risen (Basic 24 → 29, Advanced 44 → 69, Pro 84 → 149) and the record described the free plan as only a trial.Free and open source under Apache 2.0 — no subscription, licence or token purchase. The economics to understand: the Foundation is funded partly by exchange fee-share on order flow routed through its connectors (disclosed in its FAQ), so your trading indirectly funds the maintainer. Direct costs are your infrastructure and exchange fees. Re-read 2026-09-09: the FAQ still states "Hummingbot is a free software, so you can download, install, and run it for free", under Apache 2.0.
Asset coverageEditorialAny pair tradable on connected exchanges; arbitrage logic limited to spot pairs across connected venuesMarket-making and algorithmic strategies across CEXs, perp DEXs and onchain markets
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

Bitsgap

63#4 of 9
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Bitsgap if reliability matters most — it scores 7/10 to Hummingbot's 5/10 there (weight 20).
Strength
Active multi-exchange traders
Tradeoff
Arbitrage opportunities have narrowed materially since 2021 — verify the spread economics work for your size

Hummingbot

61#5 of 9
Pick it when
Pick Hummingbot if custody matters most — it scores 9/10 to Bitsgap's 4/10 there (weight 30).
Strength
Market making and liquidity provision
Tradeoff
Community-maintained connectors can silently rot on thinner venues — broken cancellation is worse than broken placement
Self-identify in 10 seconds

Which one is actually for you?

BitsgapLeads

Choose Bitsgap if reliability matters most

  • Reliability: 7/10 against 5/10 for Hummingbot (weight 20)
Hummingbot

Choose Hummingbot if custody matters most

  • Custody: 9/10 against 4/10 for Bitsgap (weight 30)
  • True cost: 9/10 against 6/10 for Bitsgap (weight 26)
  • Capability: 8/10 against 6/10 for Bitsgap (weight 24)
Criterion by criterion

Scorecard

Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology

Custody

by 5 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Hummingbot leads
Bitsgap4 out of 10
Hummingbot9 out of 10

True cost

by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hummingbot leads
Bitsgap6 out of 10
Hummingbot9 out of 10

Capability

by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Hummingbot leads
Bitsgap6 out of 10
Hummingbot8 out of 10

Reliability

by 2 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Bitsgap leads
Bitsgap7 out of 10
Hummingbot5 out of 10

Score dimensions

weights sum to 86

The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30.

Availabilityweight 20 of 86
Bitsgap20/20Hummingbot14/20
Bitsgap leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Bitsgap13.4/30Hummingbot19.1/30
Hummingbot leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86
Bitsgap2.7/10Hummingbot0.7/10
Bitsgap leads
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Bitsgap3.2/8Hummingbot3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Bitsgap6.9/18Hummingbot8.3/18
Hummingbot leads
Decision rulePublished order

Choose Bitsgap unless the term Hummingbot leads on is the one you are buying.

Pick Hummingbot if custody matters most — it scores 9/10 to Bitsgap's 4/10 there (weight 30).

The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .

From the published order

Next best action

If this isn't your case

Other matchups worth comparing

How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
  • Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
    Scored by Operational reliability · 20% (Bitsgap 7/10, Hummingbot 5/10)
  • Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.
    Scored by Key custody posture · 30% (Bitsgap 4/10, Hummingbot 9/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Execution failure, 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: True cost of operation (26%), Strategy capability (24%).
Questions

Frequently asked questions

Bitsgap scores 2 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability. Published scores, out of 100: Bitsgap 63 (rank 4 of 9 trading bots), Hummingbot 61 (rank 5 of 9).

Related pages

Go deeper

Trust & process
Individual reviews
Other comparisons
Written and reviewed by Founder
Reviewed Next review by Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed

Reviewed means both products compared here 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

Free advisorNo signup needed

Skip the comparison — get your best match

Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.

No signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research