Glassnode: institutional-grade on-chain data, wrapped in the same pricing confusion as everyone else in this series.
We're continuing our Crypto Data Screeners series with Glassnode, founded in 2018 by Jan Happel, Yann Allemann, and Rafael Schultze-Kraft as a spinout from Swissblock, a digital-asset research firm. Real, disclosed genuine strengths: over 1,700 on-chain metrics across roughly 1,500 assets, named institutional clients (Coinbase Institutional, Binance, CME, Grayscale, Ark Invest), and a disclosed, active practice of removing metrics that don't meet its own stated accuracy standards. What we don't think should be set aside: reported pricing for the same tier varies by as much as $70/month across sources we checked, and we found real, disclosed user complaints about historical-data limits at lower tiers and difficulty cancelling auto-renewals. We weighted all of it below.
Our take, up front: Glassnode is an on-chain analytics and market intelligence platform founded in 2018 by Jan Happel, Yann Allemann, and Rafael Schultze-Kraft, spun out of Swissblock, a digital-asset and global-macro research firm, headquartered in Zug, Switzerland. Real, disclosed genuine strength: its core product, Glassnode Studio, combines on-chain blockchain data with off-chain spot, futures, options, and CME market data into a single platform, covering more than 1,700 metrics across roughly 1,500 digital assets with up to 15 years of historical depth. Real, disclosed institutional credibility we want to highlight directly: the company's own site names Coinbase Institutional, Binance, CME, Grayscale, and Ark Invest among its clients, and it won "Digital Asset Research Provider of the Year" at the 2025 Hedgeweek Global Digital Assets Awards. Real, disclosed active data-quality practice: Glassnode's own changelog states it removed certain protocol metrics in 2026 "as part of our ongoing commitment to institutional-grade digital assets data that meets the highest standards of accuracy and reliability," a specific, disclosed curation practice rather than a vague assurance. What we don't think should be set aside: reported pricing for the same tiers varies meaningfully across sources we checked, the Advanced tier alone was reported at $29, $39, and $49-99 per month across different reviews, and the Professional tier at both $799 and $999 per month. Real, disclosed user complaints we found directly: one reviewer wrote that at the Advanced tier, "the majority of the metrics that you will want to use are almost useless because these metrics only plot back on the chart for the past 1 month," and a separate review noted "users report issues with auto-renewals that are difficult to cancel and a lack of responsive customer support." Real, disclosed narrower practical asset coverage: several reviews note the platform's deepest, most useful metrics concentrate specifically on Bitcoin and Ethereum, with coverage thinning meaningfully beyond those two assets. Real, disclosed strategic refocusing: Glassnode acquired the crypto tax platform Accointing in October 2022, then divested that business to Blockpit in 2023 to concentrate on its core institutional data and analytics business. We weighted all of it below.
Real, disclosed genuinely strong institutional credibility: named institutional clients (Coinbase Institutional, Binance, CME, Grayscale, Ark Invest), 2025 industry awards for data and research quality, and a real, disclosed active metric-curation practice, proactively removing metrics that don't meet "the highest standards of accuracy and reliability." Real, disclosed named, stable founding team with a credible research pedigree (spun out from Swissblock). What tempers this modestly: a minor, real, disclosed founding-year discrepancy across sources (2017 vs. 2018), and we found no independent, adversarial data-accuracy audit comparable to other platforms in this series.
Pros
- Named institutional clients across major exchanges and asset managers reflect real, disclosed trust
- A disclosed practice of actively removing metrics that fall short of stated accuracy standards
Cons
- No independently-verified, third-party-audited methodology comparable to some competitors was found
- A minor founding-year discrepancy appears across the sources we checked
Real, disclosed genuinely deep filtering and alerting capability specific to on-chain behavior: threshold-based alerts (e.g., large-holder exchange inflows), entity-adjusted views, and a categorized library of 1,700-plus metrics organized by theme. What tempers this: this depth is concentrated on a much smaller asset universe than general-purpose screeners in this series.
Pros
- Threshold-based alerts on real on-chain events give genuinely actionable signal, not just raw data
- 1,700+ metrics organized by theme allow genuinely deep, structured exploration
Cons
- Screening depth concentrates heavily on a narrower asset set than general-purpose competitors
Real, disclosed genuinely distinctive on-chain-specific charting: metrics like NUPL, MVRV, SOPR, and exchange flows are visualized directly, combining on-chain and off-chain (spot, futures, options, CME) data in a single view, a real, disclosed differentiator from general-purpose price charting platforms.
Pros
- On-chain-native metrics like MVRV and SOPR are visualized directly, not left to manual calculation
- On-chain and off-chain derivatives data are combined into a single, unified view
Cons
- No general-purpose custom-scripting ecosystem comparable to a dedicated charting platform
Real, disclosed coverage of roughly 1,500 digital assets with up to 15 years of historical data, though real, disclosed practical limitation found across multiple reviews: the deepest, most useful metrics concentrate specifically on Bitcoin and Ethereum, with coverage thinning meaningfully beyond those two assets.
Pros
- Up to 15 years of historical depth on major assets exceeds most competitors in this series
Cons
- Multiple independent reviews note metric depth thins meaningfully beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum
Real, disclosed genuinely useful free tier for casual users, though real, disclosed limitation found directly in a user review: at the lower "Advanced" paid tier, several desired metrics reportedly only plot back one month of history.
Pros
- The free tier gives genuine, if limited, access to a subset of core metrics
Cons
- A specific, disclosed user complaint describes key metrics as "almost useless" at the Advanced tier due to a one-month historical-data limit
Real, disclosed tiered structure (Discover/Free, Advanced, Professional, Institutional) with API access gated specifically to the Professional tier or higher. What tempers this significantly: reported pricing for the same tiers varies meaningfully across sources, and we found real, disclosed user complaints about auto-renewals being difficult to cancel and unresponsive customer support.
Pros
- A free tier and a clearly-named tier structure give buyers a starting reference point
Cons
- Reported pricing for the same tier varies by tens of dollars per month across sources we checked
- Disclosed user complaints describe difficulty cancelling auto-renewals and unresponsive support
Real, disclosed genuinely distinctive additional products: a research/Insights publication tier, an AI-agent-oriented CLI and MCP server, Snowflake/BigQuery integrations, and a 2026 compliance-focused spinout (Cense) that separately raised its own funding.
Pros
- A genuinely broad set of extras, research reports, AI tooling, and data-warehouse integrations, extends the core product
Cons
- Premium research tiers are billed as a separate subscription from core Studio/API access
Use it for its genuine on-chain depth, but confirm current pricing directly and read the cancellation terms first.
Given the real, disclosed pricing inconsistency across third-party sources and the disclosed auto-renewal complaints, we'd check Glassnode's own pricing page directly before subscribing, and specifically read the cancellation process before entering payment details.
A genuinely trusted data source, undercut by the same pricing fog we keep finding in this category.
We want to give Glassnode real, specific credit for something that isn't universal even among well-regarded platforms: named institutional clients across major exchanges and asset managers, industry awards for research quality, and a disclosed practice of actively removing metrics that don't meet its own accuracy bar, rather than just leaving questionable data up indefinitely. That's a genuinely different posture than simply claiming to be accurate. What keeps this score in the mid-60s rather than higher is a pattern we're now seeing for the second time in this series: reported pricing for the same tier swings by tens of dollars a month depending which review site you land on, and specific, dated user complaints describe both a frustrating one-month data-history limit at the entry paid tier and real difficulty cancelling auto-renewals. None of that touches the core question of whether Glassnode's on-chain data itself is trustworthy, we think it genuinely is. But a platform this focused on institutional-grade accuracy should have an equally clear, equally institutional-grade billing experience, and right now the evidence suggests it doesn't.
The scorecard above is deliberately general. Whether Glassnode is right for you depends heavily on which of these you already are.
The analyst or institution who needs genuinely deep, credible on-chain metrics specifically for Bitcoin and Ethereum
This is exactly where Glassnode's real, disclosed institutional credibility and metric depth deliver genuine, distinctive value.
The reader who confirms current pricing directly on Glassnode's own site rather than a third-party comparison page
Given the real, disclosed pricing inconsistency we found across sources, this specific habit genuinely matters here.
The casual trader interested in the free tier's basic on-chain metrics as a supplementary signal
This is a real, disclosed, genuinely useful entry point worth testing before committing to a paid tier.
Anyone on a lower-tier plan who needs extended historical charts, or who assumes cancellation will be frictionless
A real, disclosed one-month historical-data limit and disclosed auto-renewal complaints make this a poor fit for those specific expectations.
The scorecard covers the headline judgment calls. These four tables cover the specifics we didn't want to bury in prose; the pricing discrepancy documented across sources, two specific user complaints quoted directly, the accuracy-commitment practice examined, and how all four platforms in this series compare so far.
The pricing discrepancy, documented across sources
| Source | Reported Advanced-tier price | Reported Professional-tier price |
|---|---|---|
| CRYPTINT.IO (Apr 2026) | ~$49/month | ~$999/month (annual) |
| ComparEdge (Jul 2026) | $49-99/month | ~$999/month |
| APIs.io | ~$39/month | ~$799/month (bundled with API) |
| CaptainAltcoin (older review) | ~$29/month | Not directly comparable |
We're presenting these side by side because the spread is large enough to change a buying decision, not a rounding difference; this is the second platform in this series where we found this same pattern of inconsistent third-party pricing reporting.
Two user complaints, quoted directly
| Complaint | Source |
|---|---|
| "The majority of the metrics that you will want to use are almost useless because these metrics only plot back on the chart for the past 1 month" | CaptainAltcoin review, on the $29/month Advanced plan |
| "Users report issues with auto-renewals that are difficult to cancel and a lack of responsive customer support" | ComparEdge review |
We're quoting these directly rather than summarizing them because the specifics matter; a "one month history limit" and "difficult to cancel" are concrete, checkable claims, not vague dissatisfaction.
The accuracy-commitment practice, examined
| What we found | |
|---|---|
| The practice | Removing protocol metrics from Studio and the API on a specific, announced date (March 13, 2026) |
| The stated reason | "Our ongoing commitment to institutional-grade digital assets data that meets the highest standards of accuracy and reliability" |
| Why this is notable | Actively removing metrics is a real, disclosed cost to the company; a weaker platform might simply leave questionable data up |
| What we can't independently verify | The specific technical reasons a given metric no longer met that bar |
We're crediting this because deprecating data is a real, disclosed action with a real cost, not just a stated value; it's a different kind of evidence than a policy page that only makes promises.
All four platforms, so far in this series
| CoinGecko | TradingView | Glassnode | CoinMarketCap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core disclosed issue | Active exploration of a ~$500M sale; unresolved wash-trading user complaint | Default crypto volume reflects one exchange, not an aggregated figure | Inconsistent third-party pricing; disclosed billing and history-limit complaints | Ranking methodology changed to favor owner Binance shortly after acquisition |
| Ownership | Founder-owned since 2014; sale process ongoing as of Jan 2026 | Privately held, venture-backed, no exchange ownership found | Founder-led since 2018; no acquisition or ownership controversy found | Owned by Binance since April 2020 |
| Core strength | Most transparent, actively-improved data-integrity methodology in this series | Best-in-class charting depth and custom scripting (Pine Script) | Institutional-grade on-chain metric depth and named institutional clients | Unmatched scale: 50M+ tokens, 940+ exchanges tracked |
| Our score | 68.25/100 | 67.5/100 | 65.25/100 | 51.75/100 |
Glassnode's score reflects genuine credit for institutional trust and data-quality practices, tempered by the same pricing-transparency pattern we first flagged at TradingView, now recurring at a second, otherwise well-regarded platform.
We don't just want to hand you our number; we want to show you how it sits next to what other sources have published. We're flagging directly that general "best on-chain analytics" round-ups and institutional-user sentiment treat Glassnode as the category standard for data depth and credibility, without weighing the pricing-transparency and billing complaints we found as directly as our methodology does.
Our score lands modestly below the aggregated industry average; general and institutional sentiment credits Glassnode's genuine data depth and reputation heavily, while giving considerably less direct weight to the pricing inconsistency and disclosed billing complaints we found central to this review.
| Source | Score | Type |
|---|
Scores compiled by our editorial team from publicly available reviews as of August 2026. "Editorial estimate" means the outlet didn't publish a single numeric score, so we converted their published verdict and sentiment into a comparable 100-point figure. Verify current figures directly with each source before citing them elsewhere.
Co-founders Jan Happel, Yann Allemann, and Rafael Schultze-Kraft founded Glassnode in 2018 as a spinout from Swissblock, a digital-asset research firm. Jan Happel currently serves as CEO. We found no acquisition or outside-ownership controversy in our research.
Broadly, yes. Named institutional clients, industry awards, and a disclosed practice of actively removing metrics that fall short of stated accuracy standards all support this. We didn't find an independently-audited methodology comparable to some competitors, but we also found no confirmed data-accuracy scandal.
We found this genuinely hard to pin down from third-party sources; reported Advanced-tier pricing ranged from $29 to $99/month, and Professional-tier pricing from roughly $799 to $999/month, across different reviews. Check Glassnode's own pricing page directly for current rates.
There's a free "Discover" tier with basic charts and limited historical data. Full metric access, low-latency data, and API access require a paid Advanced or Professional plan.
We found a specific, disclosed third-party review reporting that "users report issues with auto-renewals that are difficult to cancel and a lack of responsive customer support." We'd recommend reading Glassnode's current cancellation terms directly before subscribing.
It lists coverage across roughly 1,500 digital assets, but multiple independent reviews note the deepest, most useful metrics concentrate specifically on Bitcoin and Ethereum, with coverage thinning meaningfully beyond those two.
Glassnode acquired the crypto tax and portfolio-tracking platform Accointing in October 2022, then divested that business to Blockpit in 2023 to refocus on its core institutional data and analytics business.
The company's own site names Coinbase Institutional, Binance, CME, Grayscale, and Ark Invest among its clients, alongside a broader base of professional analysts and retail users.
More Reviews
CryptoRank – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 59.25/100. Deep fundraising database; disclosed investor MEXC Pioneer is the venture arm of a complaint-heavy exchange.
Read More
TradingView – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 67.5/100. Best-in-class charting and Pine Script, but default crypto volume reflects one exchange, not an aggregate.
Read More
RootData – Crypto Data Screener Review
RootData: 67.75/100. Proactively discloses fraud monthly and tracks project closures; one unresolved third-party listing question.
Read More
CoinMarketCap – Crypto Data Screener Review
Score: 51.75/100. Unmatched scale, but ranking methodology changed to favor owner Binance shortly after acquisition.
Read More