Bitvavo review: why it scores 9.16

The crypto exchanges ranking scores five criteria: Scale of value trusted (28%), Track record (20%), Status transparency (18%), Security record (18%) and Latency (16%). Security audits, Multi-chain reach and Peg stability are not scored in this category. All five criteria were measured for Bitvavo, so coverage is 100% and no weight was redistributed.

Each criterion score times its weight gives the total. Track record contributes 2.00 points, Scale of value trusted 1.96, Status transparency 1.80, Security record 1.80 and Latency 1.60, for 9.16. The 0.84 points Bitvavo misses all come from Scale of value trusted, where it scores 7 against a category median of 9. On the other four criteria it is at or above the median: level on Track record (10), and above on Status transparency (10 against 2), Security record (10 against 7) and Latency (10 against 9). The full rubric is on the methodology page.

Bitvavo publishes a statuspage-based status site with a parseable incident history that reaches back past the full 90-day window the collector requested. The category median for this criterion is 2, the score for no public status page, so Bitvavo is one of the minority of exchanges whose operational record can be checked from outside. The score rewards that openness; it is not a measure of uptime.

The archive also supplies context that is measured but not scored. Over the 90 days to collection, Bitvavo's incident history logged 25 incidents, the equivalent of 8.33 per 30 days, and took a median 2,553 minutes from report to resolution. It labelled 20 of them minor, 3 major and 2 with impact none. The three it called major were open for a combined 86,017 minutes, so only 33.63% of the window was free of a self-declared major incident. That figure is not uptime: it counts only what the provider itself flagged as major, and a single long-running incident entry can dominate it. At the moment of collection Bitvavo's own status indicator showed no active incident. None of this enters the score, because services log and label incidents at very different granularity, and a detailed feed can reflect thorough reporting as much as frequent problems.

DefiLlama's hack database held 1,307 incidents when checked on October 19, 2026, and none is matched to Bitvavo by DefiLlama protocol id or exact name. That earns the full 1.80 points, against a category median of 7. No hack on record is not the same as never hacked: the criterion counts only this database, and incidents reported elsewhere are not scored. Absence from the record is still meaningful, because most large losses in crypto end up there.

Our probe timed Bitvavo's live interface at a median 33 ms to first byte. Most exchanges in this category were timed at a public API endpoint instead, so Bitvavo is scored on the bands for the surface it was actually timed at, the interface, rather than against the API-based category median of 268 ms. It is one location and a small sample (two of three samples kept, the slowest discarded). It measures how quickly the site answers from one place, not order execution or what a user elsewhere will see.

Bitvavo has operated since its 2018 founding, 3,033 days at collection (counted from July 1, 2018, because the public record gives only the year), with its Wikipedia entry as the public record. That is younger than the category median of 3,763 days, but past the point where this criterion tops out, so it scores 10 like most of the table. The score records that the business has lasted through a full market cycle, not that it will.

DefiLlama tracks $296,646,339 in value held by Bitvavo as of the October 19, 2026 collection, on its Bitvavo protocol page. On the log-scaled criterion that scores 7, two points under the category median of 9 and 0.84 points short of the 2.80 available. The category median reserve figure is $5.43B, roughly eighteen times Bitvavo's tracked holdings.

This is the only criterion on which Bitvavo gives up anything, and it is a finding about disclosed scale, not solvency. A 7 means DefiLlama can see and attribute a few hundred million dollars to Bitvavo's wallets; it does not show what share of customer balances that represents, and it is a better result than the 3 given to exchanges with no trackable reserves at all. Whether the tracked figure captures everything Bitvavo holds is not something this rating can tell.

The rating measures operational health from public data: reserves DefiLlama can see, years in operation, status transparency, response time and hacks recorded in DefiLlama's database. It does not certify that Bitvavo is safe, solvent or compliant in any jurisdiction, and a 9.16 is not a guarantee that funds held there are protected.

What the evidence does show: no hack listed against Bitvavo in a database of 1,307 incidents, a status archive anyone can audit, a fast interface from our probe location and more than eight years of continuous operation. What it also shows, in the unscored context: 25 logged incidents in 90 days, three of them self-labelled major, and a median repair time of 2,553 minutes, which a reader can weigh for themselves on the status history. What it cannot show is how much Bitvavo holds against customer balances beyond the $296.6M DefiLlama attributes to it.

Fees, spreads, account verification, customer support and app experience are not scored for any exchange, so the 9.16 says nothing about them. For what Bitvavo is and how it works, see About Bitvavo. How CoinPulse is paid for, and why that does not affect scores, is set out on how this site is funded.

The three exchanges above Bitvavo all beat it on the same criterion. Robinhood leads at 9.66, 0.50 points ahead: its $14.92B in tracked reserves scores 10 against 7, worth 0.84, while Bitvavo wins back 0.16 on Latency (10 against 9) and 0.18 on Security record (10 against Robinhood's 9, from one $8,200 incident in 2023). Gemini (#2, 9.56) is 0.40 ahead on reserves alone (9 against 7, worth 0.56) less Bitvavo's latency edge (0.16). Bitstamp (#3, 9.18) is just 0.02 ahead: its reserves score 9 against 7 (worth 0.56), but a $5.2M phishing incident from 2015 in DefiLlama's database puts its Security record at 7 against Bitvavo's 10 (worth 0.54 to Bitvavo).

Below, the gap widens. Crypto.com (#5, 8.20) trails by 0.96: its larger reserves (9 against 7) are worth 0.56, but a 435 ms probe result (5 against 10) and a $33.7M incident from 2022 (6 against 10) cost it 1.52. OKX (#6, 8.08) has $30.91B in tracked reserves, scoring 10 against 7 and worth 0.84, yet trails by 1.08 because it has no public status page (2 against 10, worth 1.44) and a slower probe result (7 against 10, worth 0.48).

The pattern is consistent: Bitvavo is the smallest exchange by tracked reserves in this group, and everything else on its scorecard is at the maximum. A larger disclosed reserve figure is the only measured change that would move it up.

Bitvavo's 9.16 is the scorecard of an exchange that is fully open to outside checking and has nothing against it in the public hack record, but holds far less trackable value than the exchanges around it. If the question is whether its operational record can be audited, the evidence says yes, and the status archive is there to read, including the 25 incidents and long repair times it logged in the last 90 days. If the question is how much it holds relative to its customers, this rating can only report $296.6M visible to DefiLlama. Fees, support and anything else outside the five criteria need separate checking.