XT.com: crypto exchanges rating breakdown

Custody of funds: 2/10

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 2 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 26th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 40% weight that is 1.20 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

A proof-of-reserves page exists. The data does not. When we opened it, the reserve-ratio table rendered “No data” and invited us to “stay tuned”. No snapshot date, no liability total, no named auditor — the page merely says balances “can be audited through an authorized third-party auditing firm”, and names none. A derivatives liquidation fund whose balance page also renders “No Data”. Nothing covering theft of customer assets.

True cost of trading: 6/10

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 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 14th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 16% weight that is exactly level with the median 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: 8/10

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 8 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 6th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 9% weight that is 0.14 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

~814 spot pairs across ~743 coins

Fiat on/off ramp: 1/10

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 1 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 22nd of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 11% weight that is 0.49 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.

Effectively none for a normal person: an OTC desk with a 50,000 USDT minimum, no published fees. Retail fiat is third-party only.

KYC and access: 6/10

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 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 14th of 28 among centralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.

Tiers and limits are published, though the pages resist automated checking. United States: The United States is a Prohibited Country in XT’s user agreement. European Union: None — absent from the ESMA register. No CASP authorisation found.

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.