OpenSea Review

How OpenSea scores in NFT marketplaces

This entry rates OpenSea, the NFT marketplace operated by Ozone Networks, Inc., in our NFT marketplace ranking. OpenSea now also offers token swaps and perpetual futures; those products are noted where their fees appear on the same schedule, but the rating covers NFT trading. The basis is desk research of OpenSea's help center, its terms of service (last updated October 20, 2026) and the Seaport repository on GitHub, checked on November 1, 2026. No wallet was connected and nothing was bought or listed. The category uses five equally weighted criteria, each marked 0 to 10, as set out in our ratings methodology.

The overall score is the plain average: (8 + 7 + 10 + 8 + 9) ÷ 5 = 42 ÷ 5 = 8.4. The previous overall was 7.6.

One mark was changed on November 1, 2026. Chain coverage rose from 4 to 8 because OpenSea's supported-chains article now names 27 networks, including Solana, where NFT support launched on August 31, 2026. The fee mark was rechecked after the swap fee changed from 0% to 0.5%. It stays at 8, because the criterion scores how clearly fees are published and the new figure is published.

Strongest criteria: open code and a named audit

Licence & code openness (10)

NFT trades on Ethereum and other EVM chains settle through Seaport, which OpenSea publishes under the MIT licence, with copyright held by Ozone Networks. The README lists the canonical Seaport 1.6 address and the block-explorer link for each chain where it is deployed, so a reader can match the published source to the contract that moves an NFT and splits the payment. Anyone may read, fork or reuse the code. That is the full standard this criterion asks for.

Verification & audits (9)

The Seaport README says OpenSea engaged Trail of Bits, whose consultants reviewed the protocol from April 18 to May 12, 2022 and found no significant flaws; the full report is linked. OpenSea also publishes how its blue checkmarks work. An account needs a verified email and a connected social presence. A badged collection needs at least $50,000 in total volume and passes a trust-and-safety and organic-activity review. The help article adds that a badge is not an endorsement and is not necessarily re-reviewed. The mark stops at 9 because the one named audit predates Seaport 1.6, the version now deployed. An audit is not insurance against loss.

Middle criteria: fees, chains and royalties

Fee transparency (8)

OpenSea's fee article gives a figure for each activity. On a 1 ETH sale with no creator earnings, the seller receives 0.99 ETH and OpenSea keeps 0.01 ETH. Primary drop mints carry a 10% fee, the highest figure on the schedule. Private listings, wrapping and sending funds carry no OpenSea fee. Token swaps cost 0.5%, plus any liquidity provider's fee, and perps trades 0.01% on top of Hyperliquid's own fees. Gas is paid to the network, not to OpenSea. The mark stops at 8 because the article says fees can change at any time and may be waived at OpenSea's discretion, and it shows no update date.

Chain coverage (8)

The supported-chains article names 27 networks, among them Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche, Base, Ronin, Abstract, ApeChain, Solana, HyperEVM, Monad and Arc. That is the longest published list in this category. It falls short of the top marks because the article gives no full matrix of which features work on each chain. Where it does add a note, the scope is narrower than the headline: Solana NFT trading covers only selected collections, and stock tokens on Robinhood Chain are not offered in the United States.

Royalty policy (7)

The rule is published in a sentence each way. If a collection's creator earnings are required, every listing and accepted offer pays the creator's percentage, private listings included. If they are optional, the creator suggests a percentage and the seller can lower it to zero. With a required 5% on a 1 ETH sale, the seller receives 0.94 ETH, the creator 0.05 ETH and OpenSea 0.01 ETH. The disclosure is clear. The mark reflects that, on optional collections, payment to the creator depends on the seller, a weaker position for creators than a marketplace-wide rule.

What the score does not cover

• Liquidity and execution. Trading volume, listing depth and fill quality were not measured.
• Token swaps and perps. Their fees appear above for completeness, but they are not rated as products.
• Wallet and account security. OpenSea does not hold assets; signing a malicious listing or approval cannot be reversed. Our guide to wallet scams and phishing covers fake mints and claim pages.
• The planned SEA token. It has not launched and is outside this rating.

OpenSea vs Rarible and Element

Both peers publish their exchange code, the other way to reach a high licence mark. Rarible also scores 10 on licence and 9 on audits, for MIT-licensed contracts and a named ChainSecurity audit of its Exchange v2, and 7 on royalties. Rarible now also scores 8 on fees, after publishing per-chain rates, so the 0.6-point gap comes from chain coverage, where OpenSea's 8 is against Rarible's 5. Element, at 7.4, matches OpenSea on fees and chains (8 each) with a fee table covering 27 networks, but scores 8 on licence, for Apache-2.0 file headers in a repository with no LICENSE file, 7 on audits, for a CertiK review with no date, and 6 on royalties, where its documentation gives two payout rules.

Who this rating suits

The score describes a marketplace with open, audited settlement code, a fee for every activity and the widest published chain list in the category. It is most useful to a collector or creator on an EVM chain who wants to read the contract that settles a trade and to know in advance what each party pays. It is less useful to a creator who needs royalties paid on every sale, since that depends on the collection's setting, or to a Solana trader whose collection may not be among those supported. The score assesses published documentation and is not a recommendation to buy any NFT.