Bitsgap Review

How Bitsgap scores in crypto trading tools

Bitsgap is rated in our crypto trading tools ranking, where each tool gets five marks from 0 to 10 at equal weight. The marks come from desk research of Bitsgap's public pages, checked on 6 November 2026; we did not connect an exchange or run a bot.

The overall score is the plain average: (9 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 8) ÷ 5 = 8.8.

Two marks moved at this check, both because Bitsgap's security page documents what the July review could not find on the pricing page. Custody & API safety rose from 8 to 10: Bitsgap now states that keys with withdrawal access fail verification and will not connect. Security posture rose from 6 to 8: the page replaces the earlier "bank-grade encryption" wording with a named method and specific controls. The earlier score was 8.0.

Strongest criteria

Custody & API safety (10). This is the top of the scale, and Bitsgap reaches it by enforcement rather than advice. Most tools in the category tell users to switch off withdrawals when they create a key; Bitsgap says it will "reject any key that has withdrawal access enabled," so a key that could move funds off the exchange cannot be connected at all. Bitsgap never holds the funds; they stay in the user's exchange account.

Pricing transparency (9). The pricing page shows four plans with monthly and annual prices, bot limits per plan (3 GRID and 10 DCA bots on Basic up to 50 and 250 on Pro), backtesting depth and a free tier that runs demo bots. Prices are in US dollars. The July review quoted only the annual-billing figures; the monthly prices are higher, and both are now shown.

Venue coverage (9). The page names Aster, Binance, Bitfinex, Bitget, Coinbase Advanced, Crypto.com, EVEDEX, Gate.io, Gemini, HTX, Hyperliquid, Kraken, KuCoin, OKX, Poloniex and WhiteBIT. That is a full named list, which the rubric ranks above a count. The page's own figure of 17 does not match the 16 names, a small discrepancy that does not change the mark.

Weakest criteria

Security posture (8) is held below the top for a gap in evidence, not an adverse finding. The controls are specific: client-side RSA-2048 encryption of keys, IP restriction checked when a key is added, and two-factor login by one-time code. The page is also candid that a leaked trade-only key "can still expose your balance and trade history, or place unwanted trades within its scope." Those are three of the six controls the category's security scale counts (a named key-protection method, IP locking and two-factor login), and three score 8. What is missing is any named audit, certification or bug-bounty programme. Bitsgap's homepage says the platform has had no breaches since 2017; that is the company's own statement, and the security page records no incidents.

Entity transparency (8) names a company with registration and licence numbers in a stated free zone. It stays at 8, level with other tools that name a company, its registration number and its jurisdiction, and not higher for two reasons found in the record. Apple's App Store listing names the app's seller as a different company, Bitsgap Holding OÜ, an Estonian private limited company, and Bitsgap's own pages do not explain the relationship. And the terms say Bitsgap holds no virtual asset or financial services licence in the UAE. That is a disclosure, not a breach, since Bitsgap describes itself as software rather than a financial service, but it means the named licence is a business licence only.

What the score does not cover

• Bot returns. The homepage publishes profit and user figures without a stated method; past bot results do not predict future ones, and no criterion measures them.
• Exchange fees on every fill, which add up quickly on a busy grid. See our guide to maker and taker fees.
• EVEDEX, a derivatives venue that Bitsgap's own page describes as part of its ecosystem without saying who operates it. It is scored only as one entry in the venue list.
• Ease of use, support and execution speed, which cannot be evidenced without using the product.

Bitsgap vs Altrady and 3Commas

On current marks Bitsgap ranks first of ten at 8.8. Altrady, at 8.4, is 0.4 points behind. They match on pricing, venue coverage and entity transparency. Bitsgap is a point ahead on custody, because it refuses withdrawal-enabled keys rather than only never requesting them, and a point ahead on security (8 against 7), because it names its encryption method where Altrady does not. 3Commas, also at 8.4 and 0.4 points behind, uses the same hosted API-key model. It matches Bitsgap on pricing (9), security (8) and entity (8), and trails on custody (9 against 10) and venues (8 against 9).

Who it suits

The score fits someone who wants hosted grid or DCA bots on mainstream exchanges, with the platform itself blocking keys that could withdraw funds, and who accepts that a trade-enabled key on a third-party server still carries risk. Our ratings methodology sets out how each criterion is defined.