Skip to content

October 3, 2026

SearchAbout
CRYPTO·COINBEAT

Journalism for the digital-asset economy

Ratings / Exchanges & Trading

Best Crypto Exchanges

Ranked on who actually holds the coins, under whose licence, and what a round-trip really costs.

8 services ratedLast verified August 18, 2026Methodology

What the score is made of

Weights total 100% · how each axis is recorded ↓
Custody & reserves
35%
Segregation of client assets, proof-of-reserves practice, insurance and audit history.
Regulatory footing
25%
Licences held, jurisdictions served openly, and the record of enforcement actions.
Cost of trading
20%
All-in cost: maker/taker schedule, spreads at size, funding and withdrawal fees.
Market coverage
20%
Listed assets, fiat rails, derivatives and depth of the order book at size.

The table at a glance

8 rated · top score 9.2 · tap a row for the full entry

  1. 01KrakenUsers who want a regulated venue with a long, boring security record9.2
  2. 02CoinbaseUS users who want the clearest legal claim on their balance8.9
  3. 03BinanceTraders who want the deepest book and widest asset list, and accept the perimeter risk8.6
  4. 04BitstampEuropean users who want a licensed venue and a short asset list8.4
  5. 05GeminiUsers who prioritise a regulated custodian over trading features8.3
  6. 06OKXActive traders who want Binance-class depth with a different jurisdiction mix8.2
  7. 07BybitDerivatives traders who want execution quality above all else8.0
  8. 08Crypto.comUsers who want an exchange, card and app in one account7.6
Editor’s pickRank 01

Kraken

Users who want a regulated venue with a long, boring security record

Kraken has run since 2011 without a customer-funds breach, publishes cryptographically verifiable proof of reserves, and holds licences in several serious jurisdictions. Fees sit mid-market and the interface is unglamorous, which is the point.

In its favour

  • Merkle-tree proof of reserves with a named third-party auditor
  • Deep fiat rails in USD, EUR and GBP with no theatrical minimums
  • Long operating history with no loss of customer funds

Against it

  • Advanced order types live in a separate Pro interface that beginners find abrupt
  • Token listings arrive late by design, so early-cycle assets are often missing
  • Founded2011
  • Custody modelCustodial, client assets segregated
  • Proof of reservesMerkle tree, third-party verified
Score9.2

The weighted mean of the 4 axes below — each read from the fact printed beside it.

Strongest
Custody & reserves9.4
Weakest
Cost of trading8.7

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
9.4
Terms state client assets are segregated and held for the customer; proof of reserves is published as a Merkle tree that a user can check their own balance against, attested by an independent accounting firm. No loss of customer funds on record since launch in 2011.
Regulatory footing
9.2
Holds the Wyoming SPDI bank charter granted in September 2020 — the first issued to a crypto exchange — alongside UK, EU and other national registrations; settled an SEC action over its US staking programme in February 2023 for $30m; no open matter concerning custody of client assets.
Cost of trading
8.7
Full maker/taker schedule published with volume tiers, plus a separate lower-cost Pro schedule; deposit and withdrawal fees published per rail.
Market coverage
9.1
Spot markets across large and mid-cap assets, with derivatives only where locally authorised; direct bank rails in USD, EUR, GBP, CHF, CAD and AUD.

Read the full Kraken review →

The rest of the table

02

Coinbase

US users who want the clearest legal claim on their balance

A public company filing audited accounts is a governance standard no private exchange matches, and the custody terms are the clearest in the industry. You pay for that in fees, which remain the highest of any major venue on the simple interface.

In its favour

  • Public-company disclosure and audited financial statements
  • Clear segregation language and an institutional custody arm with insurance
  • Best-in-class fiat access for US customers

Against it

  • Simple-mode pricing is punishing; Advanced Trade is a different fee world
  • Support escalation is slow unless you are on an institutional plan
  • Founded2012
  • ListingPublic company, audited filings
  • Custody modelCustodial, segregated; qualified custodian arm

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
9.3
Files audited financial statements as an SEC-registered public company; the user agreement states customer crypto is held for the customer and not commingled with corporate assets, with institutional custody in a separately chartered NYDFS trust entity. No customer-funds loss on record.
Regulatory footing
9.5
Listed on Nasdaq since 2021; holds US state money-transmitter licences, a NYDFS trust charter and EU and UK registrations; the SEC's 2023 registration action was dismissed with prejudice in February 2025 with no fine, and no action concerning safekeeping of customer assets is on record.
Cost of trading
7.6
Two published schedules: the simple interface applies a spread plus a flat fee, while Advanced Trade uses a maker/taker tier schedule that is materially cheaper. Both are published in full.
Market coverage
8.9
Several hundred assets listed, with ACH and wire rails in the US and SEPA or local rails in supported markets; derivatives are offered through a separately regulated entity.

Full Coinbase review →

Score8.9
03

Binance

Traders who want the deepest book and widest asset list, and accept the perimeter risk

No venue comes close on depth, pairs or derivatives breadth, and the fee schedule is the cheapest in the industry at every tier. The counterweight is a regulatory history that has repeatedly reshaped which products are available in which country, sometimes with little notice.

In its favour

  • Deepest spot and perpetual books across the widest asset list
  • Lowest all-in cost at retail and professional tiers
  • Proof-of-reserves programme covering the major assets

Against it

  • Product availability changes by jurisdiction, occasionally at short notice
  • Enforcement history in several markets remains a live consideration
  • Founded2017
  • Custody modelCustodial; regional entities differ
  • Proof of reservesMerkle tree, self-published

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
8.4
Publishes a Merkle-tree proof of reserves covering major assets that a user can verify their own balance against, self-attested rather than audited; maintains a publicly disclosed insurance fund. No loss of customer spot balances on record.
Regulatory footing
7.4
Holds registrations in several markets including France, Italy, Spain and Dubai, and has withdrawn from others; pleaded guilty to US anti-money-laundering charges in November 2023 with a $4.3bn settlement and an imposed compliance monitor.
Cost of trading
9.6
Published maker/taker schedule is the lowest of the major venues at every tier, with a further discount for paying fees in the platform token; withdrawal fees published per asset.
Market coverage
9.6
The largest listed market count of any venue across spot, margin and perpetuals; fiat rails differ by regional entity and have been withdrawn in some markets at short notice.

Full Binance review →

Score8.6
04

Bitstamp

European users who want a licensed venue and a short asset list

One of the oldest exchanges still trading, with EU licensing that predates the current framework and a deliberately narrow listing policy. It does less than its rivals and does it with fewer surprises.

In its favour

  • Long-standing European licensing and conservative listing policy
  • Clean, predictable SEPA and wire rails
  • Institutional-grade custody arrangements with named partners

Against it

  • Small asset list; almost nothing outside the top of the market
  • Derivatives and advanced order types are limited or absent
  • Founded2011
  • OwnerRobinhood Markets, since June 2025
  • Custody modelCustodial, segregated

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
8.9
Terms provide for segregation of client funds and part of the holdings sit with named third-party custodians; the January 2015 hot-wallet theft of roughly 19,000 BTC was covered from company reserves and no customer lost funds.
Regulatory footing
9.0
Licensed in Luxembourg as a payment institution since 2016 and passported across the EU, with more than fifty licences and registrations worldwide; owned by Robinhood Markets, a US-listed company, since the $200m acquisition completed in June 2025; no enforcement action on record concerning client assets.
Cost of trading
7.8
Tiered maker/taker schedule published; SEPA deposits free with published withdrawal fees; no separate retail-versus-professional pricing split.
Market coverage
7.3
Deliberately short listed-asset list concentrated on large caps; EUR, USD and GBP rails; no perpetual futures product.

Full Bitstamp review →

Score8.4
05

Gemini

Users who prioritise a regulated custodian over trading features

Gemini built its identity around being the compliance-first venue, and the custody stack — a New York trust company — is genuinely stronger than the trading product it wraps. Fees on the retail interface are high and liquidity is thinner than the top tier.

In its favour

  • Trust-company custody with a real regulatory supervisor
  • SOC-audited security programme published in detail
  • Straightforward interface with no dark patterns around leverage

Against it

  • Retail fee schedule is expensive; ActiveTrader is a separate learning curve
  • Book depth trails the majors on anything outside the top pairs
  • Founded2014
  • Custody modelCustodial via chartered trust company
  • AuditSOC 1 / SOC 2 programme

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
8.9
Operates as a New York limited-purpose trust company under NYDFS supervision, which requires customer assets to be held segregated, and has filed audited public accounts since its Nasdaq listing in September 2025; publishes SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 examination results. No exchange-custody loss on record.
Regulatory footing
9.1
Holds a NYDFS trust charter granted in 2015 and listed on Nasdaq in September 2025. The CFTC sued in 2022 over statements about a bitcoin futures product and Gemini settled for $5m in January 2024; NYDFS and the New York Attorney General settled over the Gemini Earn lending programme during 2024, Earn customers were repaid in full in kind by mid-2024, and the SEC's related claims were dismissed after that restitution. The exchange's own custody was not the subject of any of those actions.
Cost of trading
7.2
Two published schedules: the retail interface applies a convenience fee plus spread, while ActiveTrader uses a maker/taker tier schedule.
Market coverage
7.2
Listed asset count is a fraction of the largest venues; USD rails plus limited international currencies; derivatives available only in selected jurisdictions.

Full Gemini review →

Score8.3
06

OKX

Active traders who want Binance-class depth with a different jurisdiction mix

The strongest technical product outside Binance: deep perpetuals, a competent on-chain wallet and a proof-of-reserves programme published on a regular cadence. Its regulatory position varies sharply by country and deserves checking before you fund.

In its favour

  • Monthly proof-of-reserves cadence with verifiable Merkle proofs
  • Strong derivatives engine and competitive funding rates
  • Integrated self-custody wallet that is genuinely usable

Against it

  • Availability and product set differ significantly by jurisdiction
  • Support quality drops off outside the highest volume tiers
  • Founded2017
  • Custody modelCustodial; separate self-custody wallet available
  • Proof of reservesPublished monthly

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
8.2
Publishes a Merkle-tree proof of reserves monthly with user-verifiable inclusion and a stated reserve ratio, self-attested rather than audited. No loss of customer spot balances on record.
Regulatory footing
7.0
Holds licences in Dubai, Singapore, the Bahamas and EU markets; its operating entity pleaded guilty in February 2025 to running an unlicensed money-transmitting business, paying $505m in fines and forfeiture and accepting an external compliance consultant until 2027, and US access is restricted.
Cost of trading
9.0
Published maker/taker schedule sits among the lowest of the major venues; perpetual funding published per market per interval.
Market coverage
9.0
Large spot and perpetual market count plus an integrated self-custody wallet; fiat access differs by regional entity.

Full OKX review →

Score8.2
07

Bybit

Derivatives traders who want execution quality above all else

Bybit's matching engine and perpetual liquidity are excellent, and the fee schedule is aggressive. Its 2025 hot-wallet incident was reimbursed in full without customer loss, which is reassuring about the balance sheet and unflattering about the operational controls.

In its favour

  • Excellent derivatives execution and low taker fees
  • Reimbursed customers in full after its largest security incident
  • Fast listing cadence for new perpetual markets

Against it

  • Security track record includes a major hot-wallet compromise
  • Regulatory footprint is thinner than the licensed Western venues
  • Founded2018
  • FocusDerivatives-led, spot secondary
  • Proof of reservesPublished, Merkle-verifiable

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
7.8
Publishes a Merkle-tree proof of reserves with user-verifiable inclusion; in February 2025 a cold-wallet signing compromise removed roughly $1.5bn in ETH, and the company replaced the assets from its own balance sheet and borrowed liquidity while honouring withdrawals throughout.
Regulatory footing
6.8
Holds a licence in Dubai and registrations in several smaller markets; has been fined or restricted in some jurisdictions and withdrawn from others, including the UK retail market and France.
Cost of trading
9.2
Published maker/taker schedule with taker fees at the low end of the category; funding published per perpetual market.
Market coverage
8.6
Broad perpetual and spot market list with a fast listing cadence; fiat access runs through third-party providers rather than direct bank rails in most markets.

Full Bybit review →

Score8.0
08

Crypto.com

Users who want an exchange, card and app in one account

The broadest consumer product in the sector — trading, card, staking and payments in one app — with licensing in several markets to support it. The trading side is the weakest part: pricing is opaque in the simple view and the app pushes its own token hard.

In its favour

  • Wide licensing across Europe, Singapore and the US at varying scopes
  • Genuinely integrated card and payments experience
  • Large asset list with fiat support in many currencies

Against it

  • Simple-mode pricing hides a meaningful spread on top of stated fees
  • Product benefits are heavily tied to staking the platform's own token
  • Founded2016
  • Custody modelCustodial, segregated
  • ScopeExchange, card, payments, staking

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Custody & reserves
7.6
Publishes proof of reserves with third-party verification of the stated reserve ratio and holds insurance cover on a portion of custodied assets. No loss of customer funds on record.
Regulatory footing
7.6
Holds registrations and licences across Singapore, Dubai, Malta and the wider EU under MiCA, the UK and several US states; no enforcement action on record concerning custody of client assets.
Cost of trading
7.2
Fee schedule published, with the app's simple interface applying a spread on top of it; card and staking benefits are tiered to a locked stake of the platform token.
Market coverage
8.2
Large listed-asset count with fiat rails in many currencies, plus card and payments products under the same account.

Full Crypto.com review →

Score7.6

↑ Back to the table at a glance

What the record supports

Kraken and Coinbase remain the default answers for anyone who wants a regulated venue with a real audit trail, and they charge for it. Binance and OKX are the cheapest liquid places to trade at size, but the regulatory perimeter around them is the risk you are accepting in exchange for the spread.

A conclusion drawn from the facts above, and the only part of this page that is.

How a score is read

Each axis is read off the same five bands. They describe what is on the record, not how impressed we are.

9.0–10
Documented and independently verifiable
The claim is evidenced by a published record a third party can check — an attestation, an on-chain contract, a regulator's register — and nothing adverse is on file.
8.0–8.9
Documented, with gaps
Evidence exists but is partial, dated, or covers only part of what the axis measures.
7.0–7.9
Self-reported only
The operator publishes the information and no independent party has verified it.
6.0–6.9
Adverse event on record
A recorded incident, enforcement action or failure that has since been resolved, remediated or repaid.
Below 6
Undocumented or unresolved
No published evidence, or an incident with no resolution on the record. An absence of evidence is scored as an absence.

How we scored this table

An exchange is a custodian first and a marketplace second, so this table records custodial facts first: what the terms of service say about segregation, whether reserves are published in a form a user can verify, and what is on the incident record.

Each axis score is read off those facts against the same five bands used across the Ratings Desk. Published and independently attested evidence scores at the top; the same claim self-published without a third party sits a band lower; a recorded adverse event moves a venue down until it is resolved on the record, and an absence of published evidence is scored as an absence, not given the benefit of the doubt.

Cost is taken from published schedules rather than promotional rates, and coverage counts markets and fiat rails that are actually available in the jurisdictions the venue serves. Licence claims are checked against the regulator's register, not the operator's marketing page.

  • Every score on this page carries the fact it was read from, printed beside the bar.
  • Enforcement matters are recorded with their status: settled, dismissed or open.
  • Referral terms, affiliate rates and promotional fee waivers are not recorded and carry no weight.

What each axis records, and where the facts come from

Custody & reserves35%
Whether the terms of service state that client assets are segregated and held for the customer; whether proof of reserves is published, how often, and whether a named third party attests to it; every recorded loss-of-funds event and whether customers were made whole.
Source: Terms of service, proof-of-reserves pages and their Merkle tools, attestation letters, incident post-mortems.
Regulatory footing25%
Licences and registrations held, by entity and jurisdiction, checked against the regulator's own register; enforcement actions filed against the operator, and whether each is settled, dismissed or open.
Source: Public regulator registers, filed complaints and settlement orders, the operator's entity disclosures.
Cost of trading20%
The published maker/taker schedule at entry and mid volume tiers; whether a separate retail interface applies a spread on top; deposit, withdrawal and funding fees per rail.
Source: Published fee schedules and rate cards, quoted spreads on the venue's own top pairs.
Market coverage20%
Spot and derivatives markets listed; fiat currencies with a working deposit and withdrawal rail; which products are unavailable per jurisdiction.
Source: Venue market lists and public API endpoints, fiat rail documentation, regional availability notices.

Frequently asked questions

What is the most important thing to check before funding an exchange account?+

Whether the terms of service say client assets are segregated and held on trust for you, and whether the venue publishes a verifiable proof of reserves. Those two documents decide what happens to your balance in an insolvency; fee schedules do not.

Are proof-of-reserves reports enough to prove an exchange is solvent?+

No. Proof of reserves shows assets at a point in time; solvency also requires knowing liabilities, which most attestations cover weakly or not at all. Treat it as a necessary check, not a sufficient one.

Is it safer to spread balances across several exchanges?+

It reduces single-venue failure risk but multiplies your exposure to account takeover and KYC friction. For long-term holdings the better split is exchange for trading, self-custody for storage — not exchange A plus exchange B.

Do lower trading fees actually matter for most users?+

Less than people assume. For anyone trading a few times a month, spread and withdrawal fees dominate the maker/taker schedule, and a venue that saves you two basis points but delays a withdrawal for three days has cost you more than it saved.

More in Exchanges & Trading