Almanak

Name: Almanak
Brand: Almanak

AI Native

Unleashing sophisticated financial AI agents for all. Follow us. Join Beta: https://almanakai.typeform.com/beta-access

Est 2022|Valuation $13.8M|Raised $10.1M

LinkedIn 4K|Web traffic 5K|FTEs 7|HQ Zurich, Zurich, CH

Published Oct 7, 2026

01Common complaints

- Organizations that require documented enterprise compliance proof (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001) at the time of procurement: public evidence was not located. - Organizations that require abundant third-party product reviews and references on mainstream B2B review platforms: Almanak's footprint on Gartner/G2/TrustRadius appears minimal. - Non-technical retail users expecting simple, insured outcomes: the product is developer-first and requires operational and DeFi risk competence. - Organizations requiring transparent, stable hosted pricing for budgeting and procurement: hosted execution/service costs are not clearly published. - Organizations with very low tolerance for phishing or impersonation risk: the brand has documented impersonation attempts, and strong operational security processes are recommended. (https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/34652-almanak-staking-launch-scam)

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Teams without DeFi risk expertise
Organizations requiring formal enterprise compliance artifacts (SOC 2/ISO) as a mandatory procurement condition
Users seeking guaranteed yield or a fully hands-off autopilot without an understanding of associated risks

Roadmap / feature availability

Some third-party sources reference planned security enhancements (for example, Trusted Execution Environments), but these were not documented as current features in the official documentation snapshot reviewed here. (https://tokenradar.ai/tokens/almanak)

Scale and operational limits

No explicit public limits were found for maximum strategy frequency, supported TVL, rate limits, or uptime/SLA commitments.

Security / compliance gaps

No public SOC 2 or ISO certification evidence was located.
Audit details are referenced by third parties, but primary audit reports and scopes were not obtained; purchasers should request audit artifacts.

Market-facing risk: phishing and impersonation

Documented scam sites impersonating Almanak reinforce the need for verified URLs, contract addresses, and strong operational security practices. (https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/34652-almanak-staking-launch-scam)

02Why they buy

Unique selling point evidenced by product artifacts (not solely promotional claims)

- Intent-based Python SDK and CLI workflows (scaffold strategy, run on a local fork, backtest) are described in documentation. (https://docs.almanak.co/) - Gateway sidecar architecture is documented as a mechanism to isolate secrets and restrict network access for strategy containers. (https://docs.almanak.co/) - Non-custodial execution via Safe and Zodiac permissioning is consistently described across official materials and aligned with known Safe/Zodiac capabilities. (https://docs.almanak.co/, https://gnosisguild.github.io/zodiac-wiki/index.php%3Ftitle%3DRoles_Modifier%3A_Operator_Tutorial.html)

Competitive considerations

Competitors may have longer operating histories or more conventional enterprise packaging and compliance artifacts.
Some alternatives provide clearer pricing or more public customer references.

03Field reports

Important limitation: limited coverage on mainstream B2B review platforms

Almanak does not appear to have meaningful coverage on major B2B review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights, PeerSpot, Capterra) in an accessible and attributable way during this research.

Community / social discussion (examples)

A community subreddit post titled "AMA with Almanak!!" referenced themes such as "Powering DeFAI & Trading Agents" and described the project using phrases that emphasize trading and tooling for advanced users; these are community statements rather than verified customer testimonials. (Community forum post) X/Twitter mirror sites include posts discussing scams and token tradability; such posts can be useful for assessing community communications and operational risks but are not reliable indicators of product satisfaction. (Social media mirror site discussions)

What positive feedback tends to emphasize (in available sources)

Available promotional or vendor-controlled materials emphasize the intent abstraction model, connector breadth, backtesting tools, and non-custodial execution.

What negative feedback / concerns tend to emphasize

Scam impersonation risk: security and anti-phishing sites document phishing domains impersonating Almanak, indicating brand-level risk that requires user education and signing hygiene. (Security site removal guides)
Market/token confusion: multiple token pages across aggregators may reflect listing inconsistencies; validation of official contract addresses and launch status via vendor channels is recommended.

Availability

No detailed, independently verifiable case studies with named enterprise customers and audited metrics were found in the sources retrieved.

Vendor-published / third-party metrics caution

Some third-party materials cite promotional yield claims or conversion mechanics; these references are generally promotional and not independently audited. Evaluators should request on-chain addresses for vaults, the methodology for backtest metrics (including fee, slippage, and liquidity assumptions), and disclosure of risk limits.

04Best fit

Company size

Small to mid-sized crypto-native teams — a few to a couple dozen strategy engineers — capable of operating Python tooling and understanding DeFi risk.
Funds and DAOs with engineering support may also be appropriate.

Industries

Crypto hedge funds and proprietary trading shops
DeFi protocol treasury management teams
Market makers experimenting with on-chain execution

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Head of Trading, CTO, Head of DeFi, Portfolio Manager
End users: Quant researchers, Python engineers, DevOps/SRE (for self-hosting gateways), security engineers

Pain points addressed

Translating strategy logic into reproducible on-chain execution
Reducing operational risk associated with key management for bots
Enabling faster iteration through local fork testing and backtesting

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Teams able to implement and maintain a secure SDLC (code review, secrets handling, incident response)
Teams capable of validating backtests and understanding market microstructure and MEV considerations
Acceptance that DeFi strategies require ongoing monitoring and can be impacted by external protocol events

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Almanak is presented as a framework and platform for building, testing, and deploying autonomous DeFi agents and quantitative strategies. The product mix appears to include: - Open-source Python SDK (Almanak SDK) for quantitative developers to write deterministic, auditable strategies using an intent-based architecture (e.g., Swap/LP/Borrow intents) rather than hand-crafting transaction logic. (Product overview and feature pages; official documentation; package registry listing) - A hosted Strategy Builder web application described in some public materials as providing a way to design, simulate, and deploy strategies; some press sources describe this in terms such as "no-code" or multi-agent approaches, though publicly available details on the depth and constraints of any visual or low-code tooling are limited. (Hosted product pages and promotional materials) - A production deployment model that emphasizes non-custodial execution via Safe smart accounts and delegated permissions via Zodiac Roles Modifier, plus an operational gateway sidecar pattern intended to isolate secrets and restrict outbound access from strategy runtime containers. (Official documentation and architectural design notes)

Target market and positioning

Primary target users (based on official docs and public materials): - Quant developers and crypto strategists who require programmatic control (SDK, CLI workflows, backtesting). - Advanced DeFi users and funds that aim to deploy systematic strategies while retaining custody and limiting delegated permissions. - Potential retail users via vaults/packaged strategies and points programs, as suggested by some third-party ecosystem writeups; these sources should be treated cautiously as they may be promotional. Positioning theme: tooling described in public materials as intended to support institutional workflows for strategy engineering (testing, monitoring, deployment safety) integrated with on-chain execution and permissioning mechanisms. (Company product pages and documentation)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Almanak including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Oct 7, 2026

01Common complaints

Organizations that require documented enterprise compliance proof (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001) at the time of procurement: public evidence was not located.
Organizations that require abundant third-party product reviews and references on mainstream B2B review platforms: Almanak's footprint on Gartner/G2/TrustRadius appears minimal.
Non-technical retail users expecting simple, insured outcomes: the product is developer-first and requires operational and DeFi risk competence.
Organizations requiring transparent, stable hosted pricing for budgeting and procurement: hosted execution/service costs are not clearly published.
Organizations with very low tolerance for phishing or impersonation risk: the brand has documented impersonation attempts, and strong operational security processes are recommended. (https://www.pcrisk.com/removal-guides/34652-almanak-staking-launch-scam)

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Teams without DeFi risk expertise
Organizations requiring formal enterprise compliance artifacts (SOC 2/ISO) as a mandatory procurement condition
Users seeking guaranteed yield or a fully hands-off autopilot without an understanding of associated risks

Roadmap / feature availability

Scale and operational limits

No explicit public limits were found for maximum strategy frequency, supported TVL, rate limits, or uptime/SLA commitments.

Security / compliance gaps

No public SOC 2 or ISO certification evidence was located.
Audit details are referenced by third parties, but primary audit reports and scopes were not obtained; purchasers should request audit artifacts.

Market-facing risk: phishing and impersonation

02Why they buy

Unique selling point evidenced by product artifacts (not solely promotional claims)

Intent-based Python SDK and CLI workflows (scaffold strategy, run on a local fork, backtest) are described in documentation. (https://docs.almanak.co/)
Gateway sidecar architecture is documented as a mechanism to isolate secrets and restrict network access for strategy containers. (https://docs.almanak.co/)
Non-custodial execution via Safe and Zodiac permissioning is consistently described across official materials and aligned with known Safe/Zodiac capabilities. (https://docs.almanak.co/, https://gnosisguild.github.io/zodiac-wiki/index.php%3Ftitle%3DRoles_Modifier%3A_Operator_Tutorial.html)

Competitive considerations

Competitors may have longer operating histories or more conventional enterprise packaging and compliance artifacts.
Some alternatives provide clearer pricing or more public customer references.

03Field reports

Important limitation: limited coverage on mainstream B2B review platforms

Community / social discussion (examples)

X/Twitter mirror sites include posts discussing scams and token tradability; such posts can be useful for assessing community communications and operational risks but are not reliable indicators of product satisfaction. (Social media mirror site discussions)

What positive feedback tends to emphasize (in available sources)

Available promotional or vendor-controlled materials emphasize the intent abstraction model, connector breadth, backtesting tools, and non-custodial execution.

What negative feedback / concerns tend to emphasize

Scam impersonation risk: security and anti-phishing sites document phishing domains impersonating Almanak, indicating brand-level risk that requires user education and signing hygiene. (Security site removal guides)
Market/token confusion: multiple token pages across aggregators may reflect listing inconsistencies; validation of official contract addresses and launch status via vendor channels is recommended.

Availability

No detailed, independently verifiable case studies with named enterprise customers and audited metrics were found in the sources retrieved.

Vendor-published / third-party metrics caution

04Best fit

Company size

Small to mid-sized crypto-native teams — a few to a couple dozen strategy engineers — capable of operating Python tooling and understanding DeFi risk.
Funds and DAOs with engineering support may also be appropriate.

Industries

Crypto hedge funds and proprietary trading shops
DeFi protocol treasury management teams
Market makers experimenting with on-chain execution

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Head of Trading, CTO, Head of DeFi, Portfolio Manager
End users: Quant researchers, Python engineers, DevOps/SRE (for self-hosting gateways), security engineers

Pain points addressed

Translating strategy logic into reproducible on-chain execution
Reducing operational risk associated with key management for bots
Enabling faster iteration through local fork testing and backtesting

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Teams able to implement and maintain a secure SDLC (code review, secrets handling, incident response)
Teams capable of validating backtests and understanding market microstructure and MEV considerations
Acceptance that DeFi strategies require ongoing monitoring and can be impacted by external protocol events

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Almanak is presented as a framework and platform for building, testing, and deploying autonomous DeFi agents and quantitative strategies. The product mix appears to include:

Open-source Python SDK (Almanak SDK) for quantitative developers to write deterministic, auditable strategies using an intent-based architecture (e.g., Swap/LP/Borrow intents) rather than hand-crafting transaction logic. (Product overview and feature pages; official documentation; package registry listing)
A hosted Strategy Builder web application described in some public materials as providing a way to design, simulate, and deploy strategies; some press sources describe this in terms such as "no-code" or multi-agent approaches, though publicly available details on the depth and constraints of any visual or low-code tooling are limited. (Hosted product pages and promotional materials)
A production deployment model that emphasizes non-custodial execution via Safe smart accounts and delegated permissions via Zodiac Roles Modifier, plus an operational gateway sidecar pattern intended to isolate secrets and restrict outbound access from strategy runtime containers. (Official documentation and architectural design notes)

Target market and positioning

Primary target users (based on official docs and public materials):

Quant developers and crypto strategists who require programmatic control (SDK, CLI workflows, backtesting).
Advanced DeFi users and funds that aim to deploy systematic strategies while retaining custody and limiting delegated permissions.
Potential retail users via vaults/packaged strategies and points programs, as suggested by some third-party ecosystem writeups; these sources should be treated cautiously as they may be promotional.

Positioning theme: tooling described in public materials as intended to support institutional workflows for strategy engineering (testing, monitoring, deployment safety) integrated with on-chain execution and permissioning mechanisms. (Company product pages and documentation)

Get a comprehensive analysis of Almanak including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →