Element Review

Element (element.market) is rated in the NFT marketplaces category on five equally weighted criteria. This entry is desk research from Element's documentation and its public contract repository, checked on 1 November 2026. It is not a hands-on test. The overall score is 7.4 out of 10, up from 2.6 in July. The July check read only one features page. The documentation now opened publishes a fee for every market, a named audit and licensed contract code.

How Element scores in NFT marketplaces

Each criterion carries the same weight, so the score is the plain average: (8 + 6 + 8 + 8 + 7) / 5 = 37 / 5 = 7.4.

Every mark changed in this check. Fee transparency rose from 2 to 8, Licence & code openness from 2 to 8, Chain coverage from 2 to 8, Verification & audits from 2 to 7, and Royalty policy from 5 to 6. In each case Element's own documentation or repository now shows the fact that the July check could not find. The sources are listed with this review.

Where Element scores best

Fees and chains, on one page

Element's trading-fee page is a single table with a fee for each market. The rate is 0.5% on Ethereum and 1% on Bitcoin. It is 2% on the other 25 networks, which include BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, zkSync, Linea, Scroll, Starknet, Blast and Mantle. A seller can work out the cost in advance: a 1 ETH sale on Ethereum pays 0.005 ETH to Element, and the same sale on Base pays 0.02 ETH. Gas and any royalty come on top. Creators who run a drop pay a fixed mint fee per mint, which is published on a separate page. Fees score 8 rather than 9 because the table does not say whether the buyer or the seller pays. Peers that state who pays score higher.

The same table is why Chain coverage scores 8. Element names all 27 markets it runs, many of them layer-2 networks (see our explainer on how layer-2 rollups work).

Code that is public and licensed

The ElementEx exchange contract is public on GitHub. It is built on the 0x protocol's modular design, and its files carry the Apache-2.0 licence identifier with an "Element.Market Intl." copyright notice. That meets the substance of the criterion: the code can be read, compared with what is deployed and reused under a known licence. It scores 8, not 10, for two reasons. The repository has no top-level LICENSE file, and its last push was on 12 December 2023, so a reader cannot tell from the repository whether newer deployments match it.

Where Element falls short

Audits: named, but narrow and undated

Element's audits page names CertiK, links to CertiK's project page and lists the audited code. That code is the ERC-721 order feature and its libraries and interfaces. The ERC-1155 order feature, which the contract-governance page says the same proxy routes to, is not in that list, and the page gives no audit date. That is why the mark is 7, against 9 for peers whose repositories name the auditor and the review dates. The contract-governance page also says ElementEx is upgradeable through a 3-of-5 multisig with a five-day timelock. An audit is a point-in-time review, and it does not cover later upgrades.

Royalties: stated, but contradictory

Element's creator guide lets a creator set a royalty of up to 10% and choose the payout address. It says royalties are "paid monthly." The welcome page and the developer contract overview instead promise royalties at the moment of sale. Both cannot be the current rule. The mark rose from 5 to 6 because the 10% cap and the setting process are now documented. It stays below the 7 given to peers with a single consistent rule. The docs also do not say whether buyers can skip a royalty. That is a gap in disclosure, not a finding that royalties go unpaid.

What the score does not cover

• Liquidity and volume on each chain. Element says it aggregates more than 180 million NFTs across 27 blockchains. That is its own figure, and the rubric does not score it.
• Who operates the service and under which law. The terms name the operator only as "Element". That belongs to the company profile, not this rubric.
• The ELE token and past airdrops.
• Wallet safety. Fake sites and malicious approvals remain the main risk on any marketplace; see our guide to avoiding wallet scams and phishing.

Element vs OpenSea and Rarible

These comparisons use only the marks currently recorded for each rated peer.

• OpenSea scores 8.4, a point ahead. It leads Element on licence (10, MIT), audits (9, Trail of Bits) and royalties (7 against 6), and matches it on fees and chain coverage (8 each).
• Rarible scores 7.8, 0.4 ahead. Its MIT licence (10), ChainSecurity audit (9) and royalty rule (7) are stronger. Fees are level at 8, and Element's chain list is stronger (8 against 5).

The difference is in where each one discloses most. Element publishes the trading terms for each chain in full. OpenSea and Rarible publish more about how their contracts are licensed and checked. Peer marks may change as each review is re-checked; the current order is in the NFT marketplace ratings.

Who this score suits

The score is most useful to traders who work across several networks and want each chain's fee before they list, and to developers who want to read the exchange code under a stated licence. Creators should treat the royalty section with care until Element settles whether payouts are instant or monthly. The score measures what Element discloses. It is not a recommendation to trade there.