Crypto Rating Methodology

Every rating on Crypto Compass News is the result of multi-month hands-on testing by our editorial team. We open accounts, deposit and withdraw real funds, place real trades, contact customer support with realistic questions, and verify each criterion against published documentation and on-chain data. This page explains exactly how that process works.

The six scoring criteria

Each service is scored 0–10 across six criteria. The overall score is a weighted average — Security and Reputation carry double weight, reflecting that lost funds and account freezes outweigh marginal fee or feature differences for almost every user.

• Security (2× weight) — Proof of reserves, custody arrangements, hot/cold split, audit history, response to past incidents, regulatory licensing, secure-element hardware where applicable.
• Reputation (2× weight) — Operating history, founder transparency, legal and regulatory challenges, user reports across multiple geographies, community trust signals, breach history.
• Fees (1× weight) — Maker/taker fees, spread on common pairs, withdrawal fees, hidden costs in convert/buy products, fee tiers for active users.
• User Experience (1×) — Onboarding, mobile and web UX, order placement speed, advanced features for power users.
• Features (1×) — Asset selection, product breadth, API quality, geographic availability, novel mechanisms.
• Support (1×) — Response time, channel availability (live chat, email, phone), quality of resolution in realistic test scenarios.

How we test

For each rated service, we follow a structured testing process. We create a new account from scratch, complete KYC where required, fund the account through standard payment methods, and place representative trades or transactions. We contact customer support with realistic questions and time their responses. We review audit reports, on-chain data, regulatory filings, and the platform's own documentation against what we observe in practice.

How weighting works

The overall score uses a 2-2-1-1-1-1 weighting: Security and Reputation are each weighted 2x, while Fees, UX, Features, and Support are each weighted 1x. A service can score 9.0 on Fees and 9.5 on UX, but if Security scores 6.0, the doubled weight pulls the overall meaningfully down. We weight this way because security failures cause irreversible losses; fee or UX problems are recoverable.

Refresh cadence

Every rating is reviewed at least quarterly. Major changes trigger out-of-cycle updates: security incidents, regulatory enforcement, major product launches, sustained customer support degradation. Each review page shows the Last checked date — this is when our most recent active verification happened, not just when the article was first written.

No paid placement

Rankings are editorial. No service pays for inclusion or position. We use affiliate links where available and disclose at the point of click; affiliate revenue never influences scoring. When we score a service that has an affiliate program lower than a competitor that does not, we are not gaming the system — we are following the methodology.

Conflicts and disclosure

Authors may hold positions in tokens or services they cover, subject to our editorial policy. Specific position disclosures are made at the article level where material. Editors who would otherwise have direct conflicts (e.g., past employment at a rated company) are recused from those specific ratings.

How to challenge a rating

If you operate a rated service and believe our scoring is materially wrong, write to the editorial team via the contact page. We respond to substantive challenges within seven days, re-test where we agree the issue is meaningful, and publish corrections when our original conclusion was wrong. We do not modify ratings in response to commercial pressure.