ABYSS Index vs CryptoQuant: read the cycle, free and redistributable
CryptoQuant shines in on-chain and exchange-flow data, with a freemium model (limited free tier and paid plans). To read the CYCLE —MVRV, NUPL and a 0–1 risk— ABYSS computes it with its own node, shows it free and lets you redistribute the data because it's ours.
Side-by-side comparison
| ABYSS Index | CryptoQuant | |
|---|---|---|
| Price for the cycle | ✓ Core free, forever | Freemium (limited free, paid for more) |
| 0–1 risk index | ✓ Yes (ABYSS Risk) | Not its main focus |
| Exchange flows / miner data | Not our focus | Yes, very strong |
| Cycle on-chain (MVRV/NUPL) | ✓ Yes, free, own node | Yes (depending on the plan) |
| Data redistribution | ✓ Own data, free to cite and redistribute | Restrictive license |
| Composite cycle index | ✓ Yes (Score/Risk) | Individual metrics |
BTC cycle risk (0–1) at the real market turns, taken from OUR own historical series.
Near tops risk was high; near bottoms, low. In-sample scale (uses the full history); read it alongside other indicators, not as a crystal ball.
In fairness
Where CryptoQuant is better: its exchange-flow, miner and derivatives data are a genuine strength ABYSS doesn't cover. If your analysis revolves around flows and entity behavior, CryptoQuant is a great tool. ABYSS covers the CYCLE read, free and citable.
Frequently asked questions
Does ABYSS replace CryptoQuant?
For reading the cycle (MVRV, NUPL, 0–1 risk), yes, and for free. For exchange flows, miner data and deep on-chain granularity, CryptoQuant does things ABYSS doesn't. They're different focuses.
Is this financial advice?
No. ABYSS Index provides information and historical context for educational purposes; it is not financial advice. This comparison is factual and for informational purposes.
See the risk of all 22 assets (free) →How the ABYSS Risk is computed →See all comparisons →