Blockchain.com review: why it scores 8.04

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 Blockchain.com, so coverage is 100% and no weight was redistributed.

Each criterion score times its weight gives the total. Track record contributes 2.00 points, Status transparency 1.80, Security record 1.80, Latency 1.60 and Scale of value trusted 0.84, for 8.04. The 1.96 points Blockchain.com misses all come from Scale of value trusted, where it scores 3 against a category median of 9. On the other four 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). Blockchain.com shares its 8.04 with Bybit, which the table lists at #7; there is no measured difference between the two totals. The full rubric is on the methodology page.

DefiLlama's hack database held 1,307 incidents when checked on October 19, 2026, and none is matched to Blockchain.com 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.

Blockchain.com 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 Blockchain.com 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, the incident history logged 2 incidents, the equivalent of 0.67 per 30 days, with a median 1,240 minutes from report to resolution; with only two resolved entries, that median is the midpoint of two numbers rather than a trend. One incident was labelled critical and one with impact none; the critical one accounted for 1,003 minutes, leaving 99.23% of the window free of a self-declared major incident. That figure is not uptime, since it counts only what the provider itself flagged. At the moment of collection its 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 sparse feed can reflect light reporting as much as few problems.

Our probe timed Blockchain.com's public stats API endpoint at a median 37 ms to first byte, against a category median of 268 ms, the fastest result among the five peers compared below. It comes from one location and a small sample (two of three samples kept, the slowest discarded), compared only with other exchanges timed the same way. It measures how quickly the API answers from one place, not order execution or what a user elsewhere will see.

Blockchain.com has operated since its 2011 launch, 5,590 days at collection (counted from July 1, 2011, because the public record gives only the year), with its Wikipedia entry as the public record. That is the longest track record among the peers compared below and well past the category median of 3,763 days. The criterion treats survival as signal because most failures happen young; it records that the business has lasted through several market cycles, not that it will.

DefiLlama's exchange dashboard tracks on-chain holdings for exchanges that publish wallet-level proof of reserves, and Blockchain.com has no such listing as of the October 19, 2026 collection. The methodology scores that as 3, undisclosed. It is not a finding that Blockchain.com is small or short of funds; it means the amount it holds for customers cannot be checked on-chain from outside. The category median is 9.

At 28% of the weight, this is the only criterion costing Blockchain.com anything, and it costs a lot: 0.84 points where an exchange scoring 9 collects 2.52 and one scoring 10 collects 2.80. Every exchange ranked above it has reserves DefiLlama can track. Publishing wallet-level reserves in a form DefiLlama can read is the one measured change that would move Blockchain.com up the table.

The rating measures operational health from public data: reserves DefiLlama can see, years in operation, status transparency, API response time and hacks recorded in DefiLlama's database. It does not certify that Blockchain.com is safe, solvent or compliant in any jurisdiction, and an 8.04 is not a guarantee that funds held there are protected.

What the evidence does show: no hack listed against Blockchain.com in a database of 1,307 incidents, an incident archive anyone can audit, the fastest API response and the longest operating history among the peers compared below. What it cannot show is how much Blockchain.com holds against customer balances, because nothing is published in a form DefiLlama tracks. That gap is the reason it scores 3 on the heaviest criterion, and a reader who wants that answer will have to look for it elsewhere; this rating does not have it.

Fees, spreads, account verification, customer support, the wallet product and app experience are not scored for any exchange, so the 8.04 says nothing about them. For what Blockchain.com is and how it works, see About Blockchain.com. How CoinPulse is paid for, and why that does not affect scores, is set out on how this site is funded.

Robinhood leads the table at 9.66, 1.62 points ahead, and the whole margin is reserves: its $14.92B tracked by DefiLlama scores 10 against 3, worth 1.96 points, while Blockchain.com wins back 0.16 on Latency (10 against 9) and 0.18 on Security record (10 against 9, from one $8,200 incident in 2023). On Track record and Status transparency the two match at 10.

The exchanges on either side show the trade-off at the center of this scorecard. OKX (#6, 8.08) is 0.04 ahead with $30.91B in tracked reserves (10 against 3, worth 1.96), but it has no public status page (2 against 10, worth 1.44 to Blockchain.com) and a 287 ms probe result (7 against 10, worth 0.48). Bybit (#7) lands on exactly the same 8.04: $15.82B in tracked reserves earn it 1.96 points over Blockchain.com, and it gives all 1.96 back through no status page (1.44), a slower probe (9 against 10, 0.16) and a Security record of 8 from a February 2025 incident in which DefiLlama records $1.40B taken and all of it returned (0.36).

Below, Binance (#9, 7.90) has the largest tracked reserves in the table at $171.71B, worth 1.96 over Blockchain.com, but trails by 0.14: its status page publishes no parseable feed (5 against 10, worth 0.90), its probe result is slower (7 against 10, worth 0.48) and a $40.0M incident from 2019 scores 6 against 10 (worth 0.72). MEXC (#10, 7.80) trails by 0.24 on the same shape: reserves scoring 9 against 3 (worth 1.68), offset by no status page (1.44) and a slower probe (0.48).

Blockchain.com's 8.04 is a near-perfect operational scorecard with one blank where the heaviest criterion should be. On everything an outsider can check about how it runs, longevity, a public status archive, response time and the absence of any recorded hack, it is at the maximum. On the one thing the exchanges rubric weights most, how much it demonstrably holds, there is nothing to measure, and that alone keeps it out of the top five. If the question is whether the venue's operational record is open and clean, the evidence says yes. If the question is what backs customer balances, this rating has no answer. Fees, support and anything else outside the five criteria need separate checking.