Rating methodology
How Coindaro rates crypto exchanges and wallets: criteria, weights, project risk levels from 1 to 5 and how often every rating is reviewed and updated.
This rating methodology explains how the Coindaro editorial team scores crypto exchanges and wallets, and how we assign a risk level to crypto projects. The same rules apply to every product and in every language, so that a score on one review can be compared with a score on another. Scores are decided by the editorial team and are never for sale, as set out in our editorial policy.
Where the information comes from
We rely on official fee schedules and terms, public regulators’ registers (ESMA, national authorities, FinCEN, state regulators), security disclosures and incident reports, audit reports, product documentation and, where possible, our own use of the product. Every review lists its sources and the date of our check.
How exchanges are rated
Each exchange receives five sub-scores from 0 to 10. The overall score is the weighted average of these sub-scores, rounded to one decimal.
| Criterion | Weight | What we look at |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 30% | Track record of hacks and how customers were treated, cold storage, proof of reserves, account protection (2FA, passkeys, withdrawal allowlists), licences and regulatory history (fines, bans, settlements). |
| Fees | 25% | Spot maker and taker fees at the entry tier, spreads on instant buys, futures fees where offered, deposit and withdrawal costs, from the official fee schedule. |
| Deposits and withdrawals | 15% | Payment methods (bank transfer, SEPA, ACH, cards and others), their cost and speed, the networks supported for crypto withdrawals. |
| Support | 15% | Channels (chat, e-mail, phone), opening hours, languages including French and Italian, quality of the help centre. |
| App | 15% | Ease of use and stability of the mobile and web apps, clarity of the interface for beginners, tools for advanced users. |
How wallets are rated
Hardware wallets, software wallets and browser extensions are scored on five criteria, also from 0 to 10, with security carrying the most weight.
| Criterion | Weight | What we look at |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 30% | Custody model, secure element and certifications, open-source code, independent audits, recovery options, history of vulnerabilities and how they were fixed. |
| Ease of use | 20% | Set-up, everyday use, clarity of transaction signing, quality of the companion app. |
| Features | 20% | Supported blockchains and assets, staking, swaps, connection to apps, multi-account and backup options. |
| Price | 15% | Purchase price for hardware, fees on built-in services (swaps, purchases) for software wallets. |
| Support | 15% | Documentation, support channels and languages, firmware and app update policy. |
Adjustments and score bands
The weighted average is the starting point. The editorial team may adjust the overall score by up to 0.5 point for a factor the sub-scores do not capture well, such as a recent incident still being resolved or a product being withdrawn in some countries. Any adjustment is explained in the review.
- 9.0 to 10: excellent, very few weaknesses.
- 8.0 to 8.9: very good, minor drawbacks.
- 7.0 to 7.9: good, with limits worth knowing.
- 5.0 to 6.9: average, significant drawbacks.
- Below 5.0: we do not recommend it.
Project risk levels from 1 to 5
Project pages carry a risk level from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). It describes the risk of the protocol and its token, not a forecast of its price: a level 1 project can still lose value.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1: very low | Several years of operation, repeated independent audits, no major unresolved exploit, transparent team or mature governance, deep liquidity. |
| 2: low | Established and audited, limited incidents, some remaining centralisation such as admin keys protected by a multisig and a timelock. |
| 3: moderate | Younger or more complex design (leverage, cross-chain, new mechanisms), audited but less tested, reliance on a few parties or on token incentives. |
| 4: high | Recent launch, few audits, concentrated token supply or large upcoming unlocks, upgradeable contracts controlled by few keys, or a past exploit. |
| 5: very high | Experimental or unaudited code, anonymous team without track record, unclear tokenomics, no working product or regulators’ warnings. |
How ratings are reviewed
Every score and risk level is reviewed at least every six months. We review it sooner after a major event: a hack or loss of customer funds, a licence granted or withdrawn, an enforcement action, a large change in fees, a product closed or launched, or a change in a project’s team or governance. Each review states when it was last checked, and changes to a score are noted.
Scores help compare products; they are not a recommendation to use one. Crypto-assets carry a high risk of loss, as explained in our crypto risk warning. Learn more about the team behind these ratings on our About page.