How we score exchanges
Every ranking on this site is generated from the same nine sub-scores. Nothing is placed by hand, and commission is never an input.
The nine criteria
Each exchange gets a score from 0 to 10 on each criterion. Those scores are public — they appear on every review page as a bar chart, not as a single number you have to take on faith.
- Fees. Published maker and taker rates at the entry volume tier, after discounts an ordinary retail account can obtain. Market-maker agreements and institutional tiers are excluded.
- Security. Proof-of-reserves practice and cadence, custody disclosure, insurance or protection funds, available second factors, and the incident record.
- Liquidity. Observed depth and spread on majors and on mid-cap pairs, because a fee is only real if the fill is.
- Features. Breadth and quality of products: spot, margin, futures, options, earn, copy trading, P2P.
- Ease of use. How long it takes an ordinary person to go from signup to a correctly sized order without help.
- Support. Channels available, realistic response times, and the quality of the documentation.
- Country availability. How many of the markets we cover the exchange actually serves, weighted by market size.
- Deposit options. Fiat rails, their cost and their settlement speed.
- Track record. Operating history, governance and how the exchange behaved during its worst moments.
How rankings are produced
A ranking is a weighted average of those nine scores. Different pages use different weights, because “best” means something different to a first-time buyer and to a perpetual futures trader. The weights are not a secret — here is every profile the site uses:
| Profile | fees | security | liquidity | features | easeOfUse | support | countries | deposits | reputation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| overall | 2.0 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| beginners | 1.0 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| futures | 2.6 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 1.2 |
| lowFees | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 |
| security | 0.6 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| altcoins | 1.8 | 1.6 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.2 |
| copyTrading | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.2 |
| fiat | 1.0 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 1.8 |
Because the ranking is computed rather than curated, we cannot quietly move a partner up the list. If you think a score is wrong, the argument is about the sub-score, and that is a conversation we are happy to have — see our corrections policy.
Where the data comes from
- Fee figures come from each exchange’s own published schedule. Every figure on the site carries a source link, a verification date and a confidence label.
- Availability comes from the exchange’s terms of service and support documentation, cross-checked against regulator publications.
- Incident history comes from primary reporting and the exchange’s own disclosures, both linked.
- Anything we could not confirm on an official page is labelled secondary on the page itself rather than presented as fact.
Review cycle
Every exchange page carries a “last reviewed” date and a scheduled next review, at most a quarter away. Pages past their review date are flagged automatically in our own build output, and any pricing, availability or security change triggers an immediate re-check regardless of the schedule.
What commission does and does not do
We earn commission when a reader opens an account through our links. That revenue pays for the research. It does not enter the scoring model, it does not change the order of any list, and no exchange has ever been given the ability to review, approve or influence what we publish about it. The affiliate disclosure explains the commercial relationship in full.