How we test prediction markets platforms
At GNcrypto, we put transparency first when evaluating prediction platforms. Our reviews of prediction markets services are based on hands-on testing and thorough analysis across all key dimensions.
What We Test
We rate prediction market platforms on eight criteria that matter when you’re actually trading on real-world events. Each platform gets a score from 1.0 to 5.0 based on weighted performance across liquidity, fees, resolution quality, and user experience.
Our focus: Can you trade efficiently, get paid when you’re right, and trust the platform won’t disappear with your money?
We don’t rate solvency or audit balance sheets. These scores reflect trading quality, market access, and how platforms resolve outcomes – not whether they’ll be around in five years.
How We Score Platforms
Each criterion gets rated on a 5-point scale:
- 5/5 – Best in class (Polymarket-level liquidity, Kalshi-level regulation)
- 4/5 – Above average, works well for most users
- 3/5 – Acceptable with trade-offs (thin books, slow settlement, unclear rules)
- 2/5 – Serious problems (low volume, dispute history, geo-blocks)
- 1/5 – Broken or unsafe (exit scams, rigged resolution, unresponsive withdrawals)
Why We Use Weighted Scores
Not all criteria carry equal weight. Liquidity matters more than mobile app quality. Regulatory standing matters more than charting tools.
Our weighting system:
Tier 1 – Critical (60%)
These determine whether you can trade profitably at all:
- Liquidity & Volume – 25%
- Fees & Total Cost – 20%
- Regulatory Compliance & Access – 15%
Tier 2 – Quality (28%)
These affect your edge and trust in outcomes:
- Resolution Quality & Speed – 12%
- Market Selection & Coverage – 10%
- Pricing Efficiency – 6%
Tier 3 – Experience (12%)
Important, but won’t kill a platform if lacking:
- Deposit/Withdrawal Methods – 8%
- Tools & User Experience – 4%
Example: A platform with perfect UX (5/5) but thin liquidity (2/5) scores poorly overall. A platform with regulatory clarity (5/5) and deep books (5/5) but a clunky interface (3/5) still ranks high.
The 8 Criteria
1. Market Selection & Coverage (10% weight)
What we check:
- Event categories available (politics, sports, crypto, economy, entertainment)
- Number of active markets you can actually trade
- Niche coverage (Can you bet on Eurovision? Local elections? Altcoin launches?)
- How often new markets appear
Why it matters:
More markets = more opportunities to find mispriced events. Platforms listing only presidential elections miss 90% of tradeable outcomes.
How we test:
We count active markets during peak periods (election season, major sports events) and check whether obscure but liquid markets exist (e.g., “Will X coin launch before Q2?” or “Next Fed chair appointment”).
5/5 example: 500+ active markets across 6+ categories, new markets daily
3/5 example: 50 markets, mostly U.S. politics and sports
1/5 example: 10 stale markets, weeks between updates
2. Liquidity & Volume (25% weight)
What we check:
- Order book depth on popular markets (presidential election, BTC price milestones)
- Bid-ask spread width
- Slippage on $1K, $5K, $10K orders
- Total platform trading volume
Why it matters:
Thin books mean you can’t enter or exit positions without moving prices against yourself. A 2% spread eats your edge before the event even resolves.
How we test:
We place test orders on high-volume markets (e.g., “Trump wins 2024”) and measure fill quality. We check if $10K orders move the price more than 1%.
5/5 example: $1M+ daily volume, 0.5% spreads on majors, $50K orders fill cleanly
3/5 example: $100K daily volume, 2-3% spreads, $5K orders cause slippage
1/5 example: $10K daily volume, 10%+ spreads, you’re the only buyer
3. Fees & Total Cost (20% weight)
What we check:
- Trading fees (% per transaction)
- Withdrawal fees (flat or %)
- Settlement fees (does the platform take a cut when you win?)
- Hidden costs (wide spreads = invisible commission)
Why it matters:
A 2% trading fee on a 55/45 bet kills your edge. If you need 53% accuracy to break even instead of 50%, you’re starting behind.
How we test:
We calculate the total cost to enter and exit a $1,000 position, including spreads. We compare this to bookmaker margins and other prediction markets.
5/5 example: 0% fees (Polymarket), tight spreads, free crypto withdrawals
3/5 example: 1% trading fee, $5 withdrawal fee, 1% spread
1/5 example: 5% trading fee, 3% settlement fee, 5% spreads
4. Resolution Quality & Speed (12% weight)
What we check:
- Data sources used (UMA oracles, Reuters, AP, manual admin decisions)
- How fast markets settle after an event concludes
- Dispute resolution process (can you challenge outcomes? How?)
- History of disputed resolutions
- Transparency (published criteria, public audit trail)
Why it matters:
If a platform resolves “Trump wins popular vote” as TRUE when he lost it, you just got scammed. Slow settlement locks your capital for weeks.
How we test:
We review past dispute cases, check resolution times on recent events, and read resolution criteria for ambiguous markets.
5/5 example: Resolves within 24 hours using official sources, public dispute process, zero controversial calls in 2 years
3/5 example: Resolves in 3-7 days, some disputes, criteria published but vague
1/5 example: Resolves whenever admins feel like it, no appeals, history of rigged outcomes
5. Pricing Efficiency (6% weight)
What we check:
- Do prices track real-world probability? (Compare market odds to expert forecasts, polls, bookmakers)
- How fast do prices react to breaking news?
- Arbitrage opportunities between this platform and others (inefficiency = opportunity or red flag)
Why it matters:
Efficient markets are hard to beat but trustworthy. Inefficient markets offer edge but might indicate low liquidity or informed whales.
How we test:
We compare platform odds to Polymarket, Kalshi, and traditional bookmakers on the same event. We check if major news moves prices within minutes.
5/5 example: Prices match aggregated forecasts within 2%, react to news in under 5 minutes
3/5 example: 5-10% divergence from consensus, news takes 30+ minutes to reflect
1/5 example: Prices frozen for hours after major events, 20%+ arb gaps
6. Regulatory Compliance & Access (15% weight)
What we check:
- Licenses held (CFTC registration, state-level approvals, offshore)
- Geographic restrictions (U.S., EU, specific states)
- KYC/AML requirements
- Legal clarity for users (Am I gambling? Trading derivatives? Legal gray area?)
- Jurisdictional risks (Could this platform get shut down tomorrow?)
Why it matters:
Unregulated platforms can freeze withdrawals, change rules, or vanish. CFTC-regulated markets (Kalshi) offer legal protection. Offshore platforms (Polymarket) offer freedom but regulatory risk.
How we test:
We verify licenses, check geo-blocking, and review regulatory history (settlements, enforcement actions).
5/5 example: CFTC-registered, operates legally in all 50 U.S. states, clear legal status
3/5 example: Offshore but established, blocks U.S./EU users, regulatory uncertainty
1/5 example: No licenses, VPN-only access, history of regulatory crackdowns
7. Tools & User Experience (4% weight)
What we check:
- Interface quality (web + mobile apps)
- Charting and historical data
- API access for algo trading
- Notification systems (alerts when odds shift)
- Educational resources (How does this work? What’s a conditional market?)
Why it matters:
A terrible UI won’t stop you from making money, but it slows you down. Good tools help you spot opportunities faster.
How we test:
We use the platform for a week, place orders on mobile and desktop, and check if we can export trade history or access APIs.
5/5 example: Clean interface, TradingView-style charts, robust API, mobile app works flawlessly
3/5 example: Functional web interface, basic mobile app, limited historical data
1/5 example: Confusing layout, crashes on mobile, no API, no charts
8. Deposit/Withdrawal Methods (8% weight)
What we check:
- Crypto vs. fiat support
- Payment methods (USDC, ETH, credit card, bank transfer)
- Processing times (instant vs. 3-day ACH vs. 7-day manual review)
- Minimum deposit/withdrawal amounts
- Account funding limits
Why it matters:
If you can’t get money in or out smoothly, the platform is useless. Crypto-only platforms are fast but exclude fiat users. Fiat platforms are slower but offer easier onboarding.
How we test:
We fund accounts using different methods and time the process. We test withdrawals to see if they’re instant, delayed, or require manual approval.
5/5 example: Instant USDC deposits, credit card onboarding, withdrawals in under 10 minutes
3/5 example: Crypto-only, 1-hour confirmations, $10 minimum withdrawal
1/5 example: Bank wire only, 5-day processing, $100 minimum, frequent withdrawal “issues”
How We Calculate Final Scores
Step 1: Rate each criterion on the 1-5 scale
Step 2: Multiply each score by its weight
Step 3: Sum the weighted scores
Example: Platform X
| Criterion | Score | Weight | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market Selection | 4/5 | 0.10 | 0.40 |
| Liquidity & Volume | 5/5 | 0.25 | 1.25 |
| Fees & Total Cost | 5/5 | 0.20 | 1.00 |
| Resolution Quality | 4/5 | 0.12 | 0.48 |
| Pricing Efficiency | 4/5 | 0.06 | 0.24 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 3/5 | 0.15 | 0.45 |
| Tools & UX | 4/5 | 0.04 | 0.16 |
| Deposit/Withdrawal | 3/5 | 0.08 | 0.24 |
| Total | 32/40 | 1.00 | 4.22/5.00 |
Final rating: 4.22/5 (84.4%)
What We Don’t Rate
- Solvency or reserves – We’re not auditors. Check Proof of Reserves if available, but don’t rely on our ratings for financial safety.
- Customer support quality – Hard to test systematically, varies by user.
- Long-term platform survival – Markets change. A 5/5 today might be 2/5 next year if liquidity dries up.
Why Trust Our Ratings?
We test platforms with real money, place actual trades, and measure execution quality firsthand. We don’t accept payment for ratings or modify scores based on partnerships.
Our process:
- Open account, complete KYC (if required)
- Deposit $200 via multiple methods
- Place trades on high-volume and low-volume markets
- Measure spreads, slippage, and fill times
- Test withdrawals (crypto and fiat where available)
- Review resolution history and dispute processes
- Compare fees and liquidity to competitors
What we don’t do:
We don’t gamble with house money. We don’t test platforms we can’t legally access. We don’t rate platforms that require $10K+ minimums.
Questions?
If you think we’ve missed something or scored a platform unfairly, contact us at [email protected]. We update ratings quarterly or when platforms make major changes (new licenses, resolution failures, fee hikes).
Last updated: 19/12/2025
Next methodology review: expected
