Centralised venues ranked on custody, liquidity, cost and regulatory standing.
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
No paid placements. No affiliate links.Every score is the weighted mean of a published rubric.How we score →
Ratings
Crypto ratings you can check
Exchanges, wallets, staking, lending, bridges and DeFi protocols, each scored against a published rubric and re-checked on a stated date. The marks behind every score are on its review page.
What a score means
Full methodology →Exceptional9.0 and above · 8 services
Best in category on the evidence we can verify.
Strong8.0 and above · 80 services
Recommendable to most readers, with stated caveats.
Solid7.0 and above · 127 services
Works well for a specific use case, weaker outside it.
Mixed6.0 and above · 57 services
Usable, but there are better options for most people.
Weak5.0 and above · 8 services
Real drawbacks; only for readers who need this one feature.
Avoidbelow 5.0 · 5 services
We would not put our own funds through it.
The scoreboard
Top 3 in each of 19 categoriesExchanges & trading
5 categoriesNon-custodial spot venues ranked on execution quality, audits and liquidity.
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
On-chain derivatives venues ranked on risk engine, depth and funding costs.
- 1st place
Hyperliquid8.5/10 - 2nd place
dYdX8.4/10 - 3rd place
Jupiter Perps7.6/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Swap services ranked on true spread, KYC policy and refund conduct.
- 1st place
FixedFloat7.4/10 - 2nd place
SideShift.ai7.4/10 - 3rd place
Trocador7.4/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Charting, analytics and execution tooling ranked on data quality and cost.
- 1st place
DefiLlama9.2/10 - 2nd place
TradingView9.1/10 - 3rd place
DEX Screener8.5/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Custody & wallets
2 categories
Signing devices ranked on secure element, firmware openness and recovery design.
- 1st place
BitBox028.9/10 - 2nd place
Trezor Safe 58.8/10 - 3rd place
Keystone 3 Pro8.7/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Software wallets ranked on key handling, audits and transaction transparency.
- 1st place
Rabby9.1/10 - 2nd place
Safe8.8/10 - 3rd place
Sparrow Wallet8.5/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Yield & lending
5 categories
Validators and staking services ranked on uptime, slashing history and fees.
- 1st place
Chorus One8.6/10 - 2nd place
Allnodes8.5/10 - 3rd place
Figment8.5/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
LST issuers ranked on decentralisation, peg behaviour and withdrawal design.
- 1st place
Rocket Pool8.7/10 - 2nd place
Marinade8.5/10 - 3rd place
Jito8.3/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
LRT issuers ranked on added slashing risk, transparency and exit liquidity.
- 1st place
ether.fi7.9/10 - 2nd place
EigenLayer7.6/10 - 3rd place
Puffer Finance7.6/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Vault platforms ranked on strategy disclosure, audits and net-of-fee yield.
- 1st place
Pendle8.6/10 - 2nd place
Convex Finance8.5/10 - 3rd place
Morpho Vaults8.4/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Lending markets ranked on collateral policy, oracle design and loss record.
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
DeFi & infrastructure
3 categories
Blue-chip protocols ranked on security record, governance and real usage.
- 1st place
Aave Protocol9.2/10 - 2nd place
Uniswap Protocol9.1/10 - 3rd place
Morpho Protocol8.7/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Bridges ranked on trust assumptions, exploit history and settlement speed.
- 1st place
Across Protocol8.9/10 - 2nd place
Circle CCTP8.9/10 - 3rd place
IBC8.9/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Stablecoins ranked on reserve quality, attestations, peg record and redemption.
- 1st place
Pax Dollar9.0/10 - 2nd place
USDC9.0/10 - 3rd place
Circle EURC8.9/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
NFT & consumer
3 categories
Marketplaces ranked on custody of assets, fee clarity and royalty policy.
- 1st place
Magic Eden8.1/10 - 2nd place
OpenSea8.1/10 - 3rd place
Manifold7.8/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Analytics and creation tools ranked on data accuracy, pricing and lock-in.
- 1st place
CryptoSlam8.6/10 - 2nd place
Dune NFT Dashboards8.4/10 - 3rd place
DappRadar8.2/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Cards ranked on true all-in cost, issuer stability and jurisdiction coverage.
- 1st place
Coinbase Card7.7/10 - 2nd place
Crypto.com Visa Card7.4/10 - 3rd place
Bitpanda Card7.3/10
15 compared · checked August 2026All 15 →
Business services
1 category
Advisory firms ranked on published research, client-confirmed work and conflict disclosure.
- 1st place
Gauntlet8.6/10 - 2nd place
LlamaRisk7.6/10 - 3rd place
Tokenomics.net7.1/10
15 compared · checked 22 Sept 2026All 15 →
The full board: all 285 services
Sorted by score; low scores are shown, not hidden Group
| # | Category | Best for | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aave Protocol#1 in category | DeFi Protocols | 9.2/10 | Credit infrastructure the rest of DeFi builds on | August 2026 |
| 2 | DefiLlama#1 in category | Crypto Trading Tools | 9.2/10 | Honest, free DeFi data | August 2026 |
| 3 | Rabby#1 in category | Self-Custody Wallets | 9.1/10 | EVM users who want to see what they are signing | August 2026 |
| 4 | TradingView#2 in category | Crypto Trading Tools | 9.1/10 | Charting, alerts and broker-connected execution | August 2026 |
| 5 | Uniswap Protocol#2 in category | DeFi Protocols | 9.1/10 | The most proven piece of infrastructure in DeFi | August 2026 |
| 6 |  Aave#1 in category | Crypto Lending Platforms | 9.0/10 | The safest large lending market in DeFi | August 2026 |
| 7 | Pax Dollar#1 in category | Stablecoins | 9.0/10 | Regulated dollars with a long, quiet record | August 2026 |
| 8 | USDC#2 in category | Stablecoins | 9.0/10 | The best-documented dollar token in crypto | August 2026 |
| 9 | Across Protocol#1 in category | Cross-Chain Bridges | 8.9/10 | Fast, cheap EVM transfers with relayer-borne risk | August 2026 |
| 10 | BitBox02#1 in category | Hardware Wallets | 8.9/10 | The best balance of open firmware and usability | August 2026 |
| 11 | Circle CCTP#2 in category | Cross-Chain Bridges | 8.9/10 | Moving USDC without a wrapper | August 2026 |
| 12 | Circle EURC#3 in category | Stablecoins | 8.9/10 | Euro exposure on-chain | August 2026 |
| 13 | IBC#3 in category | Cross-Chain Bridges | 8.9/10 | Trust-minimised transfers within Cosmos | August 2026 |
| 14 |  PayPal USD#4 in category | Stablecoins | 8.9/10 | A stablecoin with a mainstream payments company behind it | August 2026 |
| 15 |  Uniswap#1 in category | Decentralised Exchanges | 8.9/10 | Deep, dependable swaps on Ethereum and its L2s | August 2026 |
| 16 | Safe#2 in category | Self-Custody Wallets | 8.8/10 | Shared treasuries and serious personal custody | August 2026 |
| 17 | Trezor Safe 5#2 in category | Hardware Wallets | 8.8/10 | Open-source purists who want a modern screen | August 2026 |
| 18 | Keystone 3 Pro#3 in category | Hardware Wallets | 8.7/10 | Air-gapped multi-chain signing | August 2026 |
| 19 | Morpho Protocol#3 in category | DeFi Protocols | 8.7/10 | Minimal, immutable lending infrastructure | August 2026 |
| 20 | Rocket Pool#1 in category | Liquid Staking Protocols | 8.7/10 | Decentralised Ethereum staking with permissionless operators | August 2026 |
| 21 |  Trezor Safe 3#4 in category | Hardware Wallets | 8.7/10 | Cheapest route to open firmware plus a secure element | August 2026 |
| 22 | Chorus One#1 in category | Staking Providers | 8.6/10 | Research-led validation across many chains | August 2026 |
| 23 | CryptoSlam#1 in category | NFT & AI Tools | 8.6/10 | Volume data with wash trading stripped out | August 2026 |
| 24 | Gauntlet#1 in category | DeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors | 8.6/10 | Lending and DEX protocols needing parameter and incentive optimization | 22 Sept 2026 |
| 25 | Pendle#1 in category | Yield Aggregators | 8.6/10 | Fixing a yield rate or trading it separately | August 2026 |
| 26 | Allnodes#2 in category | Staking Providers | 8.5/10 | Running your own validator without running servers | August 2026 |
| 27 | Convex Finance#2 in category | Yield Aggregators | 8.5/10 | Boosted Curve yields without locking CRV | August 2026 |
| 28 |  deBridge#4 in category | Cross-Chain Bridges | 8.5/10 | Fast cross-chain swaps with no wrapped assets | August 2026 |
| 29 | DEX Screener#3 in category | Crypto Trading Tools | 8.5/10 | Real-time DEX pair monitoring | August 2026 |
| 30 | Figment#3 in category | Staking Providers | 8.5/10 | Institutional staking with reporting to match | August 2026 |
30 of 285 shown
How a score is built
Methodology →- A published rubric per category
Five or six criteria, each with a stated weight; the weights sum to 100. 106 criteria across 19 categories.
- A mark from 0 to 10 on every criterion
Scored against documented evidence — filings, audits, fee schedules, incident records. 1,590 individual marks so far.
- The score is calculated, not assigned
The headline number is the weighted mean of those marks. Nothing is scored by impression, and two services in a category are always measured on the same list.
Worked exampleCoinbase, #1 in Crypto Exchanges →
| Criterion | Weight | Mark | Adds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security & custody | 25% | 9.0 | 2.25 |
| Regulatory standing | 20% | 9.5 | 1.90 |
| Liquidity & depth | 20% | 8.5 | 1.70 |
| Cost | 15% | 6.0 | 0.90 |
| Asset range | 10% | 7.5 | 0.75 |
| Support & UX | 10% | 8.5 | 0.85 |
| Weighted mean | 8.4/10 | ||
- A criterion with nothing on the public record scores 0 and is labelled “not published” rather than estimated.
- Equal scores are split by the category’s stated tie-break criterion.
- A high score means a service did well on criteria we chose and published — not that it is safe or suitable for you.
Live example · Crypto Exchanges
The rubric behind Best Crypto Exchanges
Security & custody
Incident history, cold-storage ratio, withdrawal controls, and how the venue behaved during stress.
25%
Regulatory standing
Licences held, enforcement history, and how honestly access restrictions are disclosed.
20%
Liquidity & depth
Order-book depth on majors, slippage on size, and stability of spreads in volatile hours.
20%
Cost
Headline maker/taker fees plus the spreads, funding and withdrawal charges that surround them.
15%
Asset range
Breadth of listings and fiat rails, weighed against listing discipline.
10%
Support & UX
Response times on frozen accounts, clarity of the interface, quality of the API.
10%
Every category page prints its own rubric this way, and every review shows the mark it got on each line.
Why you can check this
Editorial policy →285services scored on the same rubric per category1,590criterion marks, each visible on its review page0paid placements, sponsored rows or affiliate links
- Evidence, not promises. Marks rest on primary documents — filings, audit reports, published fee schedules, incident records — attributed on the review page or left out.
- No money from the services we rate. We accept no payment or in-kind consideration for coverage or a score. If a page ever carries an affiliate link it is disclosed there and has no bearing on the rubric.
- Conflicts declared. Where staff hold a position in an asset or service under review, it is disclosed on the page.
- Corrections on the record. Errors are corrected on the page with a note, not quietly; tips and corrections go to [email protected].
- What we do not do. No price predictions, no “most popular” badges, nothing is financial advice.
The desk behind the ratings
Reviews are published under the OBOL Desk byline and edited by three named editors, each on a beat.
Re-checked 22 September 2026
15 reviewsGauntletDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors8.6/10LlamaRiskDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors7.6/10Tokenomics.netDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors7.1/10CryptoEconLabDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors6.9/10FinDaSDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors6.3/10BlockScienceDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors6.0/108BlocksDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.7/10Simplicity GroupDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.6/10ChainriskDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.4/10Three SigmaDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.3/10Block AnaliticaDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.2/10NethermindDeFi Strategy & Protocol Economics Advisors5.2/10
Common questions about the ratings
What does an OBOL score mean?
Each category has a rubric of five or six weighted criteria. A service is marked from 0 to 10 on each criterion against documented evidence, and the score is the weighted mean of those marks. 9.0 and above is exceptional, 8.0 strong, 7.0 solid, 6.0 mixed, 5.0 weak, and anything below 5.0 we would not put our own funds through. A high score means the service did well on criteria we chose and published — not that it is safe or suitable for you.
Do services pay to be listed or ranked?
No. There are no paid placements and no affiliate links in the ratings. Position is determined by the rubric score alone, ties are split by the category's stated tie-break criterion, and we accept no in-kind consideration from the services we cover.
How often are the ratings checked?
Every review shows the date it was last checked. Scores are revised when something material changes — a security incident, a fee change, a shift in custody arrangements or regulatory status — rather than on a fixed calendar.
Why is a service not in the ratings?
We score 285 services across 19 categories. A service is left out when we cannot verify enough of the rubric from public records, when it is not available to the readers a category is written for, or when it falls outside the categories we cover. A criterion with nothing on the public record scores 0 and is labelled "not published" rather than estimated.
What is the difference between self-custody wallets and hardware wallets?
Self-custody wallets are software: apps and browser extensions where you hold the keys on a phone or computer. Hardware wallets keep the keys on a separate device that signs transactions offline. They are rated in separate categories because the risks and the criteria differ.