Skip to main content

Head-to-head · Trading Bots

Cryptohopper vs Hummingbot Cryptohopper leads by 6 points.

Cryptohopper scores 6 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability. Cryptohopper ranks #3 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.

Cryptohopper67
Hummingbot61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #3 and #5 of 9
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot 4 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-CRYPTOHOPPER-VS-HUMMINGBOT-afc62d6e
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Cryptohopper leads by 6 points

Cryptohopper scores 6 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability.

Cryptohopper #3 of 967
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 termCryptohopper leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Hummingbot on 3. The terms sum to the gap.
TermCryptohopperHummingbotWeightPoints
Custody5/109/107.2−7.5for Hummingbot−3.8 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
Reliability6/105/104.8+1.2for Cryptohopper+0.6 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension201420+15.6for Cryptohopper
FrictionScore dimension2.70.710+5.2for Cryptohopper
Net of the terms+6.7
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+6.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6761+6.0

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

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

At a glance

FactCryptohopperHummingbot
PricingSnapshotExplorer $29/mo, Adventurer $69/mo, Hero $129/mo at monthly billing; annual billing is 17% off ($24.16 / $57.50 / $107.50 a month, billed yearly). There is no free tier — only a 3-day Explorer trial that starts at sign-up. Copy Bot is priced separately, $9.99 to $99.99/mo, and marketplace strategies are extra. Re-read 2026-09-09: every tier had risen (Explorer 19 → 29, Adventurer 49 → 69, Hero 99 → 129), the annual discount was 17% and not the ~30% recorded, and the record’s claim of a paper-trading free tier was wrong — paper trading sits inside the paid Explorer package.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 exchangesMarket-making and algorithmic strategies across CEXs, perp DEXs and onchain markets
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

Cryptohopper

67#3 of 9
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Cryptohopper if reliability matters most — it scores 6/10 to Hummingbot's 5/10 there (weight 20).
Strength
Strategy-marketplace followers
Tradeoff
Marketplace strategy quality varies — many published strategies underperform vs buy-and-hold

Hummingbot

61#5 of 9
Pick it when
Pick Hummingbot if custody matters most — it scores 9/10 to Cryptohopper's 5/10 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?

CryptohopperLeads

Choose Cryptohopper if reliability matters most

  • Reliability: 6/10 against 5/10 for Hummingbot (weight 20)
Hummingbot

Choose Hummingbot if custody matters most

  • Custody: 9/10 against 5/10 for Cryptohopper (weight 30)
  • True cost: 9/10 against 6/10 for Cryptohopper (weight 26)
  • Capability: 8/10 against 6/10 for Cryptohopper (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 4 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Hummingbot leads
Cryptohopper5 out of 10
Hummingbot9 out of 10

True cost

by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hummingbot leads
Cryptohopper6 out of 10
Hummingbot9 out of 10

Capability

by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Hummingbot leads
Cryptohopper6 out of 10
Hummingbot8 out of 10

Reliability

by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Cryptohopper leads
Cryptohopper6 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
Cryptohopper20/20Hummingbot14/20
Cryptohopper leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Cryptohopper13.7/30Hummingbot19.1/30
Hummingbot leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86
Cryptohopper2.7/10Hummingbot0.7/10
Cryptohopper leads
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Cryptohopper3.2/8Hummingbot3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Cryptohopper8.3/18Hummingbot8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order

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

Pick Hummingbot if custody matters most — it scores 9/10 to Cryptohopper's 5/10 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% (Cryptohopper 6/10, Hummingbot 5/10)
  • Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.
    Scored by Key custody posture · 30% (Cryptohopper 5/10, 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

Cryptohopper scores 6 points above Hummingbot, led by reliability. Published scores, out of 100: Cryptohopper 67 (rank 3 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
Re-read due since The published cadence is 45 days; this page's next read was due on 29 October 2026.
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