Altrady Review

How Altrady scores in crypto trading tools

Altrady is rated in our crypto trading tools ranking on five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally. The marks rest on desk research of Altrady's own public pages, checked on 6 November 2026. We did not open an account, connect an exchange or run a bot.

The overall score is the plain average: (9 + 9 + 9 + 7 + 8) ÷ 5 = 8.4.

Three marks moved at this check. Entity transparency rose from 2 to 8: the July review read only the pricing and about pages and found no company, but the terms of service name the operator, its registration number and its address. Venue coverage rose from 8 to 9 because the exchanges page now gives a full named list of 19 venues, the standard at which Bitsgap also scores 9. Security posture fell from 9 to 7 under the category's security scale, set on 6 November 2026: the mark now follows the number of disclosed controls, counting a named key-protection method, IP locking, two-factor login, a published bug bounty, an independent attestation and a disclosed, handled breach. Altrady discloses two of the six, which scores 7; Bitsgap and Coinrule disclose three and score 8. The earlier score was 7.4.

Strongest criteria

Custody & API safety (9). The pricing page states that Altrady connects only through exchange API keys, that funds remain on the exchange, and that it "never requests withdrawal permissions." It also says Altrady does not hold funds or execute trades itself and is not a crypto-asset service provider under the EU's MiCA rules. That is the arrangement this rubric scores highest. Because bots run on Altrady's servers, Altrady necessarily stores a key that can trade, so the mark sits one point below the top: 9 is the mark every tool in the ranking gets for a server-held, trade-only key, and 10 is kept for tools that technically reject withdrawal-enabled keys or never hold a key.

Venue coverage (9). Spot and futures are listed for Binance, Bybit, KuCoin, OKX, Kraken, BingX, Hyperliquid and MEXC, and spot only for Coinbase, Gate.io, Bitvavo, Crypto.com, Binance US and others. Plan limits still apply: Basic connects 3 exchanges, Essential 5 and Premium an unlimited number.

Pricing transparency (9). Every tier is published in euros, monthly and yearly, with bot and exchange limits per plan, a five-day trial without a card, and add-ons priced separately (TA Scanner Pro €30 a month, Backtesting Pro €10 a month). One caveat for readers: the pricing page offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, while the terms say refunds "are never offered" for the software apart from a 14-day window on automatic renewals. The two statements disagree, so confirm which applies before paying.

Weakest criteria

Security posture (7) is the lowest mark, and it reflects a gap in disclosure rather than a contrary finding. The pricing page lists encrypted storage of API keys, two-factor authentication at login, IP whitelisting so a key works only from set addresses, and read-only keys for users who want monitoring without trading. Of the six controls the category's scale counts, two are disclosed: IP whitelisting and two-factor login. The encryption method is not named, and no audit, certification or bug bounty is published. Read-only keys are useful but are not one of the counted controls.

Entity transparency (8) is close to the top of the scale. The operating company, its Dutch registration number, street address, governing law and court jurisdiction are all on the terms page. It is held at 8, level with the other tools in this ranking that name a company, its registration number and its jurisdiction, because the terms carry no date and the entity appears only in the legal text rather than on the about or pricing pages.

What the score does not cover

• Strategy results. No criterion measures whether a grid, DCA or signal bot makes money; that depends on the market and the settings.
• Exchange fees, which each exchange charges on every fill. Our guide to trading fees explains how they add up for frequent bot trading.
• Ease of use, execution speed and support, which cannot be evidenced without using the product.
• Regulatory standing in any particular country. The terms let Altrady limit the service in some countries without naming them, and the connected exchange decides what you can trade.

Altrady vs Bitsgap and Gunbot

On current marks Altrady averages 8.4 and ranks third of ten, level with 3Commas and Cryptohopper; ties are listed alphabetically. Bitsgap, first at 8.8, is 0.4 points ahead. The two match on pricing (9), venues (9) and entity (8). Bitsgap leads on custody, 10 against 9, because it rejects withdrawal-enabled keys outright, and on security, 8 against 7, because it names its encryption method. Gunbot, at 7.6, trails Altrady by 0.8 points. It scores higher on custody (10 against 9), because its keys stay on the user's own machine, and ties on venues (9) and security (7), but sits a point lower on pricing (8) and far lower on entity (4 against 8).

Who it suits

The score fits a trader who wants a hosted terminal and bots across several mainstream exchanges, from a named European operator, and who is comfortable with a provider holding a trade-only key on its servers. Someone who wants keys to stay on their own hardware is better served by a self-hosted tool. Our ratings methodology explains how each criterion is defined.