Zerion vs Phantom
Zerion wins on measured health — 9.15/10 against 8.59/10.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | Zerion | Phantom |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Operational | Not published |
| Score On what we could measure: 78% of the criteria weight for Zerion, 78% for Phantom. | 9.15/10 | 8.59/10 |
| Age | 10.7 yr | 5.6 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 180 ms | 170 ms |
| Median fix | — | — |
| Status feed | instatus | unknown |
Zerion
9.15 / 1078% measuredLive 10.7 yr (since founding (2016), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 180 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
Publishes a live machine-readable status, but no incident archive: you can see it is down now, not how often it broke before.
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Status transparency: Publishes a live machine-readable status, but no incident archive: you can see it is down now, not how often it broke before.
Phantom
8.59 / 1078% measuredLive 5.6 yr (since founding (2021), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 170 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 crypto wallets ranking