How we score exchanges, apps and wallets

Why we publish our methodology

A score is only useful if you can see how it was reached. Every "8.7" we give an exchange, app or wallet comes from the same published framework. Laying it out means you can judge whether it matches what matters to you — and hold us to it if we drift.

Reviews are produced by the BuyCrypto.asia editorial team. No platform can pay for a score or a ranking position, and we take no payment from any platform. How the site is run is explained on our about page.

Six criteria and their weights

Each criterion is scored from 0 to 10 on its own. We then apply the weights below to produce an overall score out of 10, rounded to one decimal place.

1. Licence and legality (25%)

This carries the most weight, because it decides who is accountable when something goes wrong. We accept only registers published by regulators: the Securities and Futures Commission's list of licensed platforms in Hong Kong, the Japanese Financial Services Agency's register, the Monetary Authority of Singapore's Financial Institutions Directory, Korea's Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU) filings, the Thai SEC, FIU-IND in India and the VARA public register in Dubai, among others. A "licensed worldwide" banner earns nothing. A platform licensed in the US or Europe but not in Asia loses points here, and appearing on a regulator's warning list or being blocked in a country costs heavily.

2. Costs (20%)

We add up trading fees (maker and taker), the spread on instant-buy screens, card or bank deposit charges and withdrawal fees, and estimate the total for one scenario: buying the equivalent of $1,000 in Bitcoin and withdrawing it to your own wallet. A "zero fee" promise that is recovered through the spread does not score well. Our fees guide shows the method in practice.

3. Security (20%)

We look at whether client assets are segregated, the share held in cold storage, whether proof of reserves is published and how it is verified, account protections such as two-factor authentication and withdrawal allow-lists, and the platform's incident history. A hack does not automatically sink a score; how fully and transparently customers were made whole matters just as much.

4. UX: website and app (15%)

We go through sign-up, identity verification, deposit, purchase and withdrawal in a desktop browser, on an iPhone and on an Android phone. We note anything that invites mistakes: unclear buy and sell buttons, network selection without warnings, fees that only appear after you confirm. App store ratings are a reference point, not an input.

5. Asian availability and local rails (10%)

Which Asian countries' residents the platform accepts, which local currencies and instant transfers it supports (FPS, PayNow, PromptPay, UPI, DuitNow and others) and whether it offers local-language interfaces. On country pages, this criterion is scored for that country specifically.

6. Support and withdrawals (10%)

Support channels and languages, how complaints are handled, and the process, fees and published timing of withdrawals to a bank account. "Easy in, hard out" patterns are recorded and penalised.

How wallet and app reviews differ

Wallets do not hold your assets on your behalf, so licensing rarely applies. For wallets we shift the weight to what matters more: security design (how keys are generated and stored, open-source code, secure elements in hardware devices), backup and recovery, supported chains and tokens, the mobile and browser-extension experience, and the warnings shown before you sign a transaction. We also publish a separate 1–5 UX scorecard — onboarding, mobile app, web or extension, safety prompts — so the differences are visible at a glance. See best crypto wallets and best crypto apps.

Our review process

1. Check the official record

   Regulator registers, the law, and the platform's terms, fee page and list of supported countries, each logged with a source and date.

2. Walk through the product

   Sign-up, verification, deposit, purchase and withdrawal on desktop and mobile, noting where the instructions are clear and where they are not.

3. Score the six criteria

   Each criterion is scored independently and weighted; scores and facts are cross-checked within the editorial team.

4. Publish and keep it current

   Each page shows when its data was checked. We re-check monthly and update sooner after major events.

Data sources

Media reports are used as leads. When they make it into an article they are attributed, and anything we cannot verify is left out or marked as reported. Links to the key registers we use are listed at the bottom of this page.

Update cadence

Every month we re-check the regulator registers, fees and country availability behind our reviews and refresh the "data checked" date shown on each page. When a licence is revoked, a platform withdraws from a country or a major security incident happens, we update the affected pages and scores as soon as we can.

Corrections policy

We make mistakes, and we fix them. If you spot a factual error, an outdated fee or a broken link, email support@buycrypto.asia, ideally with the page link and an official source. We verify reports and correct confirmed errors promptly; significant corrections that change a conclusion or a score are noted on the page with what changed and when. Platforms can use the same address to flag factual errors, but they cannot ask us to change an opinion or a score.

FAQ

Sources

• SFC — lists of licensed virtual asset trading platforms · checked Oct 2026
• Japan FSA — register of crypto-asset exchange service providers (PDF) · checked Oct 2026
• MAS — Financial Institutions Directory · checked Oct 2026
• VARA (Dubai) — public register · checked Oct 2026

Keep reading