The short answerArkham makes entity-level NFT tracing accessible without an institutional contract: labelled addresses, fast flow visualisation and a genuinely capable free tier. Attributions are probabilistic with no correction process, and the intel-exchange model turns deanonymisation into a marketplace.
Best forTracing NFT holdings to named entities
Data accuracyweight 25%
7.5avg 7.8
Analytical usefulnessweight 20%
8.0avg 7.4
Value for moneyweight 20%
8.5avg 8.1
Coverageweight 20%
8.0avg 7.8
Method transparencyweight 15%
6.0avg 7.1
this service category average across 15Score = Σ mark × weight. Works well for a specific use case, weaker outside it. Methodology.
| Criterion | Mark | What we found | Source | Checked |
|---|
| Data accuracy | 7.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Analytical usefulness | 8.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Value for money | 8.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Coverage | 8.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Method transparency | 6.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
What we liked, and what fell short
Liked- Links NFT holdings to labelled entities and their wider activity
- Generous free tier
- Fast, well-designed tracing interface
Fell short- Attributions are probabilistic with no clear correction path
- Bounty model incentivises deanonymising individuals
Why the marks landed where they did
Working out who actually holds a collection — and what else those wallets do — used to require enterprise tooling. Arkham made it a free web app, and for NFT research it is fast and effective.
What it does for NFT analysis
Groups addresses into entities, shows a wallet's full portfolio across tokens and NFTs, traces where an asset came from and where funds went afterwards. For evaluating whether a collection's holders are independent or one operator, it complements Bubblemaps' visual approach with entity attribution.
The attribution caveat
Labels are probabilistic, occasionally wrong, and there is no meaningful process for a subject to contest one. Acting on an attribution — publicly or financially — without independent verification is a mistake the interface's confidence encourages.
The business model
Arkham runs an intel exchange where users post bounties for identifying specific wallets and are paid for supplying that information. It is legal, it is disclosed, and it means using the product participates in a marketplace for individual deanonymisation. Users should decide about that consciously.
Who should use it
Researchers, journalists and traders tracing NFT flows, using the free tier, with attributions verified before being relied on.
FAQ
Is Arkham free for NFT research?+
Its free tier covers entity tracing and portfolio views and outperforms several paid tools, with advanced features behind payment.
How reliable are Arkham's attributions?+
Probabilistic and occasionally wrong, with no clear correction process. Verify before acting on any specific label.
What is the intel exchange?+
A marketplace where users post bounties for identifying wallet owners and are paid for supplying the information — effectively a market in deanonymisation.
Arkham or Nansen for NFTs?+
Arkham for free tracing and portfolio-level entity views; Nansen for curated flow analytics and alerting, at a professional price.
