Cryptohopper vs TradingView
A tie, on what we measured. Both score 8.63/10. The difference between them is not something our probe can see, so we are not going to invent one.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | Cryptohopper | TradingView |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Not published | Not published |
| Score On what we could measure: 80% of the criteria weight for Cryptohopper, 80% for TradingView. | 8.63/10 | 8.63/10 |
| Age | 9.7 yr | 15.7 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 151 ms | 45 ms |
| Median fix | — | — |
| Status feed | unknown | unknown |
Cryptohopper
8.63 / 1080% measuredLive 9.7 yr (since founding (2017), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 151 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Status transparency: A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
TradingView
8.63 / 1080% measuredLive 15.7 yr (since founding (2011), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 45 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Status transparency: A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full trading tools ranking