Bitget: crypto exchanges rating breakdown

Custody of funds: 5/10

Proof-of-reserves: does it exist, who attests it, does it include liabilities (a PoR without liabilities is close to meaningless), how often. Insurance fund: size, is the address public, and has it ever actually paid out. Hack history — and above all whether users were made whole. Licences by jurisdiction, and the enforcement record behind them. Every claim here is sourced to a primary document: a regulator’s register, a court filing, or the venue’s own published proof.

Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 14th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 40% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

The page describes a monthly Merkle-tree proof with a self-verification tool. The reserve-ratio table on it rendered “No data found” when we opened it. No named attestor either. The machinery may be sound; there was nothing in it to check. One of the few genuine theft funds: a Protection Fund of several thousand BTC, held separately, which users can claim against if assets are stolen through no fault of their own. Bitget says it is monitorable via public wallet addresses — but does not print them on the fund page, and its own figures disagree between page and blog.

True cost of trading: 10/10

Measured by us, not read off a fee page. We walk the live order book and fill $1,000 / $10,000 / $100,000 of BTC/USDT, then add the venue’s published taker fee. That sum — fee + spread + realised slippage — is the effective cost. Separately: the markup on network withdrawal fees, and the hidden spread inside “convert” / “buy in one click” flows.

Scored 10 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 1st of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 16% weight that is 0.64 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Liquidity and execution: 8/10

Order-book depth within ±0.1% and ±0.5% of mid, measured from the live book. Uptime over 12 months from the status page. Behaviour under stress: were there outages on days the market moved more than 5%.

Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 5th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.22 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Assets and networks: 6/10

Number of pairs, adjusted for quality: the share of listings delisted within a year. Which networks are actually supported for deposit and withdrawal — not merely “supports USDT”.

Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 15th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 9% weight that is 0.04 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

~624 spot pairs across ~558 coins

Fiat on/off ramp: 8/10

Which methods are actually available per country, their fees, and their limits per verification tier — read from the venue’s published terms and cited. Where a venue does not publish this, that opacity is itself the finding, and it scores accordingly.

Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 7th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.28 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

The strongest fiat rails in the second tier: EUR (SEPA, €1 out), USD (SWIFT), plus BRL, MXN, PLN, AUD, CAD and more — real bank deposit and withdrawal, with a published fee table.

KYC and access: 8/10

Verification tiers and their limits, what is genuinely usable without verification, and the country deny-list — from the venue’s published policy, cited. A venue that will not tell you your withdrawal ceiling before you sign up is marked down for it.

Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 2nd of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is 0.16 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

Published in full, by VIP tier: 3,000,000 USDT/24h at the base level, rising to 20,000,000. United States: The US and its territories are Prohibited Countries in Bitget’s own terms, which also forbid using a VPN to get around it. European Union: None — MiCA application pending with the Austrian FMA. Its own July 2026 notice says authorisation has not been granted and the outcome remains subject to the regulator. It has already exited France (withdrawals due by March 2026) and blocked new German sign-ups. Oddly, its terms list Austria as a prohibited country — the very state where it filed its MiCA application.

Product, API and docs: 5/10

API documentation quality, whether rate limits are documented, whether a public status page with uptime history exists, and the API response latency we measured ourselves while pulling the order book.

Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 15th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 5% weight that is 0.03 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.

Documented API and rate limits. No status page.