# The Crypto Portfolio API Benchmark: 9 Providers
> We ran 17 real wallets through 9 crypto portfolio APIs and diffed the results. DeFi decoding moved reported net worth by 10x to 600x. Full scorecard inside.
- **URL:** https://octav.fi/blog/crypto-portfolio-api-benchmark
- **Published:** 2026-07-16
- **Author:** Octav Team — Portfolio Intelligence for Digital Assets
- **Topic:** Benchmarks & Comparisons
- **Tags:** benchmark, api, comparison
- **Source:** Octav, Practical guides on crypto NAV reporting, multi-chain portfolio management and digital asset APIs, from the team behind Octav.
---
Portfolio APIs all promise the same thing: give us an address, we'll give you
the portfolio. In practice they disagree wildly — on the same wallet, on the
same day, by as much as 600×.
We built [an open benchmark](https://benchmark.octav.fi/report) to find out why.
Seventeen real-world wallet archetypes, nine providers, one shared entry point,
no hand-typed numbers, captured as a time-aligned snapshot on 13 July 2026.
> **Disclosure:** Octav is one of the nine providers measured, and we built the
> harness. The methodology is open and the raw data is published so you can
> re-run it. We also publish the results where competitors beat us — see the
> scorecard below.
## The headline finding: DeFi decoding is the dividing line
The single biggest differentiator is not speed, price, or chain count. It is
whether an API turns a wallet's on-chain positions — lending, LP, staking,
perps, options — into a portfolio, or just lists raw token balances.
On the multi-sector whale wallet:
| API type | Reported net worth |
| --- | --- |
| Token-only APIs | $612.6k – $28.60M |
| Full-portfolio APIs | $46.27M |
That is not a pricing disagreement. On a clean single-protocol Aave wallet,
every EVM API reconciles to **within 0.2%** — proof that the large gaps are
coverage, not price-feed noise.
## The scorecard
Each dimension is scored 0–100 from measured data; the overall is a weighted
sum. **Re-weight it for your use case and the order changes** — that is the
point of publishing the weights rather than just a ranking.
Weights: coverage 25% · DeFi decoding 20% · chain breadth 15% · cost 15% ·
performance 10% · developer experience 8% · tooling 5% · features 2%.
**DeBank takes the top overall score at 85, ahead of Octav at 82.** DeBank is
the EVM DeFi gold standard and it earns that on cost and response time, where
we score 79 and 69 against our 54 and 40.
Where Octav leads: developer experience (90, the highest measured), tooling
(82), features (75, the highest measured), and — jointly with DeBank — the
maximum score on both coverage and DeFi decoding.
## What each provider is actually for
| Provider | Best at | Weak at |
| --- | --- | --- |
| DeBank | EVM DeFi depth, balanced cost and speed | Tooling (40), no Solana DeFi depth |
| Octav | Deepest coverage: options, perps, Solana DeFi | Cost (54) and response time (40) |
| Zerion | Fastest and cheapest full portfolio | Coverage (48) on complex wallets |
| Mobula | Chain breadth (92) at low cost | Coverage (40) |
| TopLedger | Solana-native depth | Chain breadth (9) — Solana only |
| Zapper | Cheap DeFi decoding | Coverage (3) |
| Nansen | Analytics alongside portfolio | Cost (0) |
| Dune | Free token data, wide chains | No DeFi decoding (0) |
| GoldRush | Widest raw chain coverage (100) | No DeFi decoding (0), coverage (7) |
## Three sectors almost nobody covers
**Options.** Only one of the nine decodes the Derive options book:
$1.33M against roughly $401.6k elsewhere. The rest see the collateral and stop.
See [Decoding Derive Options in a Crypto Portfolio](/derive-options-portfolio-tracking).
**Perps.** Hyperliquid and Lighter positions frequently vanish entirely. See
[Tracking Hyperliquid Perps in Your Portfolio](/hyperliquid-perps-portfolio-tracking).
**Solana DeFi.** Coverage is uneven and several providers have no Solana
support at all. See
[Tracking Solana DeFi Positions in a Portfolio API](/solana-defi-portfolio-tracking).
## How to read this if you are choosing an API
Ask what your wallets actually hold. If they are spot tokens on major EVM
chains, most providers here will serve you and you should optimise for price
and latency — Zerion scores 99 on cost and 92 on performance for a reason.
If your wallets hold lending positions, LP, staked assets, perps or options,
coverage dominates everything else, because an API that misses a sector does
not return a slightly wrong number. It returns a confidently wrong one.
For the mechanism behind the gaps, read
[Why Portfolio APIs Disagree About Your Net Worth](/why-portfolio-apis-disagree).
For a direct head-to-head of the top three, see
[Octav vs DeBank vs Zerion](/octav-vs-debank-vs-zerion). For consumer-facing
tools rather than APIs, see
[Best Crypto Portfolio Trackers in 2026](/best-crypto-portfolio-trackers-2026).
## Limitations
This is a snapshot of one day. Providers ship changes; coverage moves. The
wallet set is seventeen archetypes, not a statistical sample of all wallets.
The weights are a judgement call and we have published them so you can
disagree with them. Re-run the harness rather than taking our word for it.