Ranked & Reviewed · 8 services
Best NFT Marketplaces
Eight NFT marketplaces ranked on published fees, creator royalty rules, contract licences, chains covered and named audits. OpenSea leads at 8.4 in our November 2026 check.
At a glance
| # | Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | OpenSea | 8.4 | Open, audited settlement code and the widest published chain list |
| 2 | Rarible | 7.8 | Open, audited exchange contracts with per-chain fees |
| 3 | Magic Eden | 7.6 | Open-source Solana marketplace with clear fee and royalty rules |
| 4 | Element | 7.4 | Per-chain fee table covering 27 networks |
| 5 | Tensor | 7.2 | Clear maker-taker fees and royalty rules on Solana |
| 6 | SuperRare | 6.2 | Every fee split published, with an enforced 10% artist royalty |
| 7 | OKX NFT | 4.4 | Zero service fee and a broad published chain list |
| 8 | Blur | 4.0 | Zero fees and verified MIT-licensed exchange code |
Best NFT Marketplaces, ranked by score
OpenSea scores 8.4 among NFT marketplaces: its Seaport protocol is MIT-licensed with a named audit, every fee is published and 27 networks are listed. The main limits are an audit that predates the deployed Seaport 1.6 and royalties that are optional on many collections. Marks come from desk research, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Seaport settlement protocol is MIT-licensed, with deployed addresses listed (licence mark 10)
- Trail of Bits audit of Seaport named and linked in the repository (audit mark 9)
- A published fee for each activity: 1% sales, 10% drop mints, 0.5% swaps (fee mark 8)
- Supported-chains article names 27 networks, including Solana (chain mark 8)
Cons
- The only named audit (2022) predates Seaport 1.6, the version now deployed
- On optional collections the seller decides whether to pay creator earnings, with no minimum
- Fees are subject to change at any time, and the fee article shows no update date
- Solana NFT trading covers only a selected group of collections
Rarible scores 7.8 among NFT marketplaces: its MIT-licensed Exchange v2 contract is audited, still in use on Ethereum and charges the 2% seller fee its FAQ publishes. Chain coverage is the main limit, with five chains named and no full list. Marks come from desk research, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- MIT-licensed Exchange v2 with deployed addresses and fee settings published (licence mark 10)
- ChainSecurity audit of Exchange v2 named and linked in the repository (audit mark 9)
- Per-chain fees in the FAQ: 2% on Ethereum, Base and Polygon, 1.5% on Solana (fee mark 8)
- Ethereum contract's recorded 2% seller fee matches the published fee
Cons
- Only five chains are named, with no full list (chain mark 5)
- No stated rule on whether royalties can be reduced or skipped (royalty mark 7)
- The 2021 audit predates later upgrades of the proxied Exchange v2
- Aggregated EVM listings add a 2% Rarible fee on top for the buyer
- No published code or audit for Solana trades
Magic Eden scores 7.6/10 in NFT marketplaces on desk research checked on 1 November 2026. It publishes a 2% fee, a royalty rule that says who pays, and Apache-2.0 marketplace code. It now covers Solana only, and its core M2 program has no published audit.
Pros
- Licence & code 10: M2 and MMM programs public under Apache-2.0, with M2 pushed in February 2026
- Royalty policy 9: enforced on MIP-1; otherwise buyer picks 100%, 50% or 0% (default 100%)
- Fee transparency 9: 0% to list, 2% per transaction, deducted from the seller
- Audits 6: Halborn audits linked from the MMM and Open Creator Protocol repositories
Cons
- Chain coverage 4: Solana only since EVM and Bitcoin marketplaces closed on 9 March 2026
- Audits 6: no published audit for M2, the program that settles ordinary sales
- Optional royalties on non-MIP-1 collections let buyers pay creators nothing
- Fee page does not cover Solana network fees
Element scores 7.4/10 in NFT marketplaces on desk research checked on 1 November 2026. It publishes a fee for each of 27 networks, Apache-2.0 contract code and a named CertiK audit. Its royalty docs contradict each other, and the audit scope covers only ERC-721 orders.
Pros
- Fee transparency 8: one table gives the fee for all 27 markets, from 0.5% on Ethereum to 2%
- Chain coverage 8: every supported network is named, including Bitcoin and Starknet
- Licence & code 8: ElementEx is public on GitHub with Apache-2.0 headers in its files
- Audits 7: CertiK named, with the audited ERC-721 order contracts listed
Cons
- Royalty policy 6: creator guide says royalties are paid monthly; other pages say instantly
- Audits 7: no audit date, and the ERC-1155 order feature is not in the listed scope
- Repository has no LICENSE file and was last pushed in December 2023
- Fee table does not say whether the buyer or seller pays
Tensor scores 7.2 among NFT marketplaces: its 2% taker, 0% maker fee and royalty rules name who pays on every fill, and its Solana programs are open source under Apache-2.0. Audit reports are available only on request, and it covers Solana alone. Marks come from desk research, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- 2% taker fee and 0% maker fee, with maker and taker defined (fee mark 9)
- Enforced royalties paid in full by the taker; optional ones none, half or all (royalty mark 9)
- Marketplace, AMM, escrow, whitelist and fees programs open under Apache-2.0 (licence mark 9)
- Program IDs in the repositories match the foundation's deployed-address list
Cons
- Audit reports by OtterSec and Neodyme are available only on request (audit mark 5)
- No audit dates or program scope are given
- Solana only (chain mark 4)
- The tensor.trade app terms could not be read, so the app operator is not confirmed
SuperRare scores 6.2 among NFT marketplaces: it publishes every fee split, enforces a 10% resale royalty and releases its marketplace contracts under the MIT licence. No audit of those contracts is named, and it runs on Ethereum only. Marks come from desk research, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- 3% buyer fee and 85/15 primary split published with who pays and receives (fee mark 9)
- 10% royalty on every protocol resale, paid to the original artist (royalty mark 8)
- Marketplace contracts, including the Bazaar, published under MIT (licence mark 8)
- Help center says which displayed prices include the buyer fee
Cons
- No audit of the marketplace contracts is named (audit mark 2)
- Marketplace documented on Ethereum only (chain mark 4)
- Bazaar logic is owner-swappable, and no per-version audit trail is published
- Terms allow fee changes without advance notice
OKX NFT scores 4.4 among NFT marketplaces: it publishes a zero service fee and lists 13 named networks, but names no marketplace contract, licence or audit and does not say whether royalties are enforced. Marks come from desk research of OKX's help center and user agreement, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- No service fee to buy or sell on OKX's own market, per the NFT FAQ (fee mark 7)
- Gas, creator royalties and other venues' fees are named as the remaining costs
- FAQ lists 13 networks, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, TON and Sui (chain mark 7)
- Selling guide states royalties go to the creator and are shown before listing
Cons
- No marketplace contract, repository or licence is identified (licence mark 2)
- No audit of the marketplace contracts is named (audit mark 2)
- Royalty enforcement on OKX's own order book is not stated (royalty mark 4)
- The agreement reserves the right to add a percentage service fee
- Feature support varies by network, with no per-chain table
Blur scores 4.0/10 in NFT marketplaces on desk research checked on 1 November 2026. It publishes a 0% fee with a governance cap, readable MIT-licensed exchange code and three linked audit reports. It publishes no royalty rule and no chain list, and its auditor is not named.
Pros
- Fee transparency 6: homepage states 0% marketplace fees, and governance caps any fee at 2.5%
- Licence & code 6: Exchange V2 source verified on Etherscan, with Blur's own files marked MIT
- Audits 4: the foundation's audits page links three reports covering Blur, Blur v2 and Blend
Cons
- Royalty policy 2: no royalty rule published; only the committee that sets it is named
- Chain coverage 2: no supported-network list on Blur's own pages
- Audits 4: no auditor or date named on the page, and reports are file downloads only
- No public source repository; code is readable only through Etherscan
Best NFT marketplaces by use case
- You want open, audited settlement code and many chains: OpenSea. Its Seaport protocol is MIT-licensed (licence 10), the README links a named Trail of Bits audit (audits 9), and its help center lists 27 networks (chains 8). That audit dates from 2022 and predates Seaport 1.6, the version now deployed. Read the OpenSea review.
- You are a creator who needs royalties paid on resale: SuperRare enforces a 10% resale royalty to the original artist and publishes every fee split (royalty 8, fees 9). On Solana, Magic Eden and Tensor both score 9 on royalty policy: royalties are enforced on some collections (on Magic Eden, those using its MIP-1 standard), and on the rest the buyer chooses to pay all, half or none, with each rule saying who pays.
- You trade on Solana: Magic Eden and Tensor each publish a 2% fee and say who pays it. Magic Eden publishes its marketplace code under the Apache License (licence 10), but its core M2 program has no published audit (audits 6). Tensor's auditors are named, with reports available only on request (audits 5).
- You trade across many EVM networks: Element publishes a fee for each of 27 networks (chains 8): 0.5% on Ethereum, 1% on Bitcoin and 2% elsewhere. Its own documents give two different royalty payout rules (royalty 6).
- You mainly want a low headline fee: OKX NFT charges no service fee on its own market and Blur states a 0% fee. Both sit at the bottom of the table: OKX NFT names no marketplace contract, licence or audit and does not say whether royalties are enforced, and Blur publishes no royalty rule or chain list and names no auditor.
Marks by criterion
The ranking turns on two things the headline fee does not show: whether the settlement code is published under a licence and audited by a named firm, and whether the royalty rule is written down.
| Marketplace | Fees | Royalties | Licence | Chains | Audits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenSea | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Rarible | 8 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Magic Eden | 9 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Element | 8 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 |
| Tensor | 9 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 5 |
| SuperRare | 9 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 2 |
| OKX NFT | 7 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 2 |
| Blur | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
How the ranking works
Eight marketplaces are ranked. Each is marked 0 to 10 on five criteria from its own help pages, terms, repositories and audit pages. The basis is desk research, checked on November 1, 2026; no NFT was bought, listed or sold.
- Fee transparency: the commission as a figure, with who pays it and how any split works. A fee that is published but can change without notice, or whose payer is not stated, scores below a complete schedule.
- Royalty policy: whether creator royalties are enforced, optional or removed, in the marketplace's own words. A plainly stated optional rule scores above silence; Blur scores 2 because it publishes no rule at all.
- Licence & code openness: the licence read from the published exchange contracts. An MIT or Apache-2.0 repository scores highest; code readable only on a block explorer scores mid-table; code that cannot be identified scores 2.
- Chain coverage: the networks the marketplace names. A full list of 27 networks scores 8; a single, clearly documented chain scores 4; no stated network scores 2.
- Verification & audits: collection verification and audits of the marketplace contracts by a named firm, with the report linked. Audits available only on request, undated, or covering only part of the contracts score lower; no named audit scores 2.
The overall score is the plain average of the five marks, each weighted equally, rounded to one decimal. Ties are listed alphabetically. Each review sets out its marks with sources and logs any change and its reason. The full method is on our ratings methodology page.
What changed in this update
The previous check was July 24, 2026. The large rises came mostly from primary pages that the July reviews had not read, such as fee tables, code repositories and audit pages, rather than from changes at the marketplaces. On November 6, Magic Eden's chain mark was aligned from 3 to 4, the mark Tensor and SuperRare already receive for a single, clearly documented chain, which lifts it to 7.6 and third place.
| Marketplace | November 1 | July 24 | Main reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenSea | 8.4 | 7.6 | Supported-chains article now names 27 networks (chains 4 to 8) |
| Rarible | 7.8 | 7.2 | Per-chain fees and who pays now in the FAQ; five chains named |
| Magic Eden | 7.6 | 4.4 | Apache-2.0 code (licence 2 to 10) and royalty rule read; EVM and Bitcoin markets closed on March 9, 2026 |
| Element | 7.4 | 2.6 | Fee table, Apache-2.0 contract headers and CertiK audit page read |
| Tensor | 7.2 | 5.2 | Apache-2.0 programs found; OtterSec and Neodyme named as auditors |
| SuperRare | 6.2 | 4.6 | MIT-licensed marketplace contracts; Ethereum documented as its chain |
| OKX NFT | 4.4 | 2.2 | Zero service fee stated and 13 networks named |
| Blur | 4.0 | 2.8 | MIT identifiers in verified Etherscan source; three audit reports linked |
Two marketplaces were withdrawn. Zora was removed because it is no longer an NFT marketplace. LooksRare was removed because its exchange has recorded no trades since October 2025 and its API is offline.
What the scores do not cover
- Liquidity and prices. The rubric does not measure trading volume, depth or how fast a listing sells. A high-scoring venue may have few buyers for a given collection.
- Approval scams. Most NFT losses come from signing a malicious listing or token approval, and a signature cannot be undone by the marketplace. Our guide to wallet scams and phishing covers fake mints and drain approvals.
- Audit age. A named audit is a point-in-time review. The 2022 Seaport audit that OpenSea links predates the deployed release, and Rarible's 2021 audit predates later upgrades to its proxied Exchange v2.
- Gas and network fees. Marketplace commissions exclude network fees for listing, buying and cancelling. See how gas works.
- Collection value. Nothing here assesses whether an NFT is worth its price or will hold value.
How to choose
- Start with the chain your collection lives on; four of the eight venues document a single chain or name none.
- Check the royalty setting for the specific collection, not only the marketplace's general policy. On OpenSea and on optional collections at Magic Eden and Tensor, the outcome depends on the collection or the buyer.
- Work out who pays the fee. SuperRare's 3% is added for the buyer; Magic Eden's and Rarible's fees come from the seller.
- On aggregated listings, check whose fee applies. Rarible adds a 2% fee for the buyer on top of the other venue's fee on EVM chains.
- Read each signature request in your wallet before approving it, and revoke approvals you no longer need.
Are NFT creator royalties enforced on marketplaces?
It depends on the venue and often on the collection. SuperRare states an enforced 10% artist royalty. Magic Eden enforces royalties on MIP-1 collections and Tensor on collections set as enforced; on other collections both let the buyer choose. OpenSea marks royalties as required or optional per collection. Rarible and OKX NFT do not say whether a royalty can be reduced or skipped, and Blur publishes no rule.
How we score this category
A marketplace is scored on what it costs to trade, how it treats creator royalties, and how well it protects buyers from the approval-based scams common to NFTs. This rubric follows the published fee, the royalty policy in the marketplace's own words, the chains supported and the licence of any published contract — because the difference between an enforced royalty and an optional one is a real one for a creator, and worth stating plainly.
Every service in this ranking is scored 0–10 against the same 5 criteria, each carrying equal weight (20% apiece). The overall score is their plain average, rounded to one decimal place, and each review prints the individual numbers and the arithmetic so you can reproduce the result yourself.
What each criterion covers
- Fee transparency20% of the score
- Whether the marketplace commission is published as a figure, including who pays it and how any split works. A stated percentage beats a claim of low fees with no number.
- Royalty policy20% of the score
- Whether creator royalties are enforced, optional or removed — stated in the marketplace's own words. Honesty about an optional or zero-royalty model scores above vagueness, even where the policy itself is unfavourable to creators.
- Licence & code openness20% of the score
- The licence on the marketplace's published exchange contracts, read from the file. A recognised open-source licence scores highest; no published repository, or a repository with no licence, scores low.
- Chain coverage20% of the score
- The networks the marketplace states it operates on. Where a marketplace is narrowing its coverage, that is scored as the fact it is.
- Verification & audits20% of the score
- Whether the marketplace documents a collection-verification system or scam protection, and whether its contracts are audited by a named firm.
What does not affect a score
Only the criteria above count. No provider can buy a score, a rank, or an entry in this list. Where two services finish level, they are listed alphabetically rather than ordered silently.
The process across all categories, including how often we re-check, is set out in our ratings methodology.
Frequently asked questions
Which NFT marketplaces were included in this ranking?
The ranking covers the eight NFT marketplaces with a current review on the site, across Ethereum, Solana and multichain venues. Zora and LooksRare were withdrawn in this update. The list is not a full survey of every NFT venue.
How is each marketplace's overall score calculated?
Each marketplace gets a 0 to 10 mark on fee transparency, royalty policy, licence and code openness, chain coverage, and verification and audits. The overall score is the plain average of the five marks, rounded to one decimal, with ties listed alphabetically.
Which NFT marketplace has the lowest fees?
OKX NFT states no service fee on its own market, and Blur states 0%, although governance may set up to 2.5%. OpenSea charges 1% on sales and Magic Eden and Tensor 2%. Gas and creator royalties still apply.
What risk do these scores not capture?
They do not measure liquidity, or whether a collection is worth its price. They also cannot protect you from signing a malicious approval, which is the most common way NFT traders lose assets.
How old are the measurements?
All eight marketplaces were checked on November 1, 2026; the previous check was July 24, 2026. Fee pages change, so each review lists the date of every source it used.
Rankings are editorial. Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.







