Magic Eden: nft marketplaces rating breakdown
5 chains
The most genuinely multi-chain venue here, with real activity on Solana, Bitcoin ordinals, Ethereum and more, and the one that has adapted fastest as attention moved between chains. Its wallet and aggregation tooling make it the practical default for anyone whose collecting is not Ethereum-only.
The most genuinely multi-chain venue here, with real activity on Solana, Bitcoin ordinals, Ethereum and more, and the one that has adapted fastest as attention moved between chains. Its wallet and aggregation tooling make it the practical default for anyone whose collecting is not Ethereum-only.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What the venue takes | 2% marketplace fee · published · 2026-08-27 · source | 28% | 5 | 6.5 | 6 of 8 | -0.42 |
| What the creator actually gets | optional; handling varies by chain creator royalties · published · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 6 | 6 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Is anyone actually trading here? | — | 22% | 6 | 5.5 | 3 of 8 | +0.11 |
| Custody and approvals | — | 15% | 7 | 7 | 3 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Chains and collections | 5 chains · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 10% | 8 | 3.5 | 2 of 8 | +0.45 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by chains and collections, worth +0.45 points against the median
What the venue takes: 5/10
The published marketplace fee, quoted from the venue’s own documentation, alongside thirty days of fees actually collected from public data — because a headline of “0%” and a business that still needs revenue is a combination worth examining. Where a venue charges differently for its own drops or its own chain, that is recorded separately.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 6th of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 28% weight that is 0.42 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What the creator actually gets: 6/10
Whether creator royalties are enforced, optional, or capped, per the venue’s own documentation. This is the category’s defining change: royalties used to be enforced by marketplaces as a courtesy, and the fee war ended that almost everywhere. A buyer should know whether the artist is being paid, and a creator should know before they mint.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 4th of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 2.
Is anyone actually trading here?: 6/10
Thirty days of fees collected and value held in on-platform bidding pools, from public data at a stated timestamp. In a collapsed market this is the criterion that separates a venue from a website: a marketplace collecting four figures a month has an interface, not a market.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 5.5, which places it 3rd of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.11 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Custody and approvals: 7/10
Whether listing requires granting a contract approval over your collection, what that approval can do, and the venue’s incident history — including phishing and front-end attacks, which have cost NFT holders far more than contract exploits ever have.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 3rd of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 6.
Chains and collections: 8/10
Chains supported with real activity, and whether the venue is the primary market for the collections on them.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 3.5, which places it 2nd of 8 among nft marketplaces on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.45 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Chains and collections | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Immutable Orderbook | 4 | Behind by 4 on chains and collections. |
| 3 | Blur | 3 | Behind by 5 on chains and collections. |
| 5 | Tensor | 3 | Behind by 5 on chains and collections. |
| 6 | Sudoswap | 5 | Behind by 3 on chains and collections. |
Questions about this score
Why does Magic Eden charge 2% when OpenSea charges 0.5%?
+
It never fully entered the fee war, and its multi-chain infrastructure is expensive to run. For a collector whose assets sit on Bitcoin ordinals or Solana, the alternative venues are thinner and the premium buys access to the deepest book on that chain. On Ethereum, where OpenSea and Blur both operate, the case for paying four times more is much harder to make.
Does Magic Eden pay creator royalties?
+
It depends on the chain, which is the honest and unsatisfying answer. Royalty handling differs across its deployments, so a creator listing a collection needs to check the terms for their specific chain rather than assume a single policy applies across the platform.