Nansen

Name: Nansen
Brand: Nansen

AI NativeLeader

Become Smart Money: A New Way to Trade

Est 2020|Valuation $749.9M|Raised $89.3M|1 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 23K|Web traffic 284K|FTEs 110|HQ Singapore, SG

MarketsCrypto & Digital Asset Market Intelligence

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (where competitors excel)

- Dune vs Nansen: Dune provides transparency and customizability for teams that prefer building dashboards and queries; it supports public sharing and programmatic exports. Nansen is more curated with pre-built labels, dashboards, and alerts, which can reduce time-to-signal for teams that accept the platform’s abstractions. - Arkham vs Nansen: Arkham emphasizes deanonymization and entity intelligence and may be stronger for investigative "who is this address?" workflows. Nansen emphasizes labeled cohorts and trader/investor dashboards. - Glassnode vs Nansen: Glassnode focuses on macro onchain metrics and derivatives; it may be a better fit for macro funds seeking entity-adjusted metrics and point-in-time datasets. Nansen focuses on wallet flows and labeled entities across multiple chains.

Pricing comparison (value proposition)

Nansen’s Pro pricing positions it lower than many pro-grade crypto analytics products. Buyers should consider:

level of support included,
API credit consumption and expiry,
and the impact of integrated trading fees (tiered) on execution economics.

	Nansen	Dune	Arkham
Starting Price	Pro: tens–low hundreds per month (monthly or discounted annual billing)	Free tier; paid plans include Analyst/Plus/Premium	Free tier; paid tiers exist (pricing varies)
Best For	Traders and funds seeking labeled-wallet smart-money cohorts, alerts, and an integrated workflow	Analysts and developers seeking custom SQL dashboards, community datasets, and programmable workflows	Investigators and teams focused on attribution and entity intelligence workflows
Key Strength	Wallet labeling and curated cohorts; alerts; integrated execution direction	Flexibility of custom queries/dashboards and community sharing	Entity deanonymization and investigative workflows
Key Weakness	Billing/cancellation dispute signal in public reviews; security certification information not clearly public; reliance on probabilistic labeling	Requires SQL skills for full capability; wallet labeling not a core built-in feature for all use cases	Some features and pricing can be opaque; attribution may be probabilistic or contested

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (where competitors excel)

Dune vs Nansen: Dune provides transparency and customizability for teams that prefer building dashboards and queries; it supports public sharing and programmatic exports. Nansen is more curated with pre-built labels, dashboards, and alerts, which can reduce time-to-signal for teams that accept the platform’s abstractions.
Arkham vs Nansen: Arkham emphasizes deanonymization and entity intelligence and may be stronger for investigative "who is this address?" workflows. Nansen emphasizes labeled cohorts and trader/investor dashboards.
Glassnode vs Nansen: Glassnode focuses on macro onchain metrics and derivatives; it may be a better fit for macro funds seeking entity-adjusted metrics and point-in-time datasets. Nansen focuses on wallet flows and labeled entities across multiple chains.

Pricing comparison (value proposition)

Nansen’s Pro pricing positions it lower than many pro-grade crypto analytics products. Buyers should consider:

level of support included,
API credit consumption and expiry,
and the impact of integrated trading fees (tiered) on execution economics.

	Nansen	Dune	Arkham
Starting Price	Pro: tens–low hundreds per month (monthly or discounted annual billing)	Free tier; paid plans include Analyst/Plus/Premium	Free tier; paid tiers exist (pricing varies)
Best For	Traders and funds seeking labeled-wallet smart-money cohorts, alerts, and an integrated workflow	Analysts and developers seeking custom SQL dashboards, community datasets, and programmable workflows	Investigators and teams focused on attribution and entity intelligence workflows
Key Strength	Wallet labeling and curated cohorts; alerts; integrated execution direction	Flexibility of custom queries/dashboards and community sharing	Entity deanonymization and investigative workflows
Key Weakness	Billing/cancellation dispute signal in public reviews; security certification information not clearly public; reliance on probabilistic labeling	Requires SQL skills for full capability; wallet labeling not a core built-in feature for all use cases	Some features and pricing can be opaque; attribution may be probabilistic or contested