Two crypto assets can carry the same grade and still be nothing alike underneath. That is the problem with comparing them on price, on market capitalization, or on how often you hear about them: none of those tell you where one is actually stronger than the other.
Here is a method that does, worked end to end on the two largest crypto assets. You can run the same method on any pair.
Step 1: score the same things, in the same order, for both assets
The method only works if both assets face the same questions. At CryptoGrade we score every asset we rate on six dimensions, each on a 0 to 5 scale, each carrying a fixed weight out of 100 points:
Dimension | What it asks | Weight |
|---|---|---|
Tokenomics and Value Accrual | Is supply predictable, and does anything accrue to the asset itself? | 28 |
On-chain Usage and Economics | Is the network used, and does that use produce economics? | 22 |
Security, Decentralization and Durability | Can it keep running, and can anyone break or capture it? | 18 |
Ecosystem and Moat | Is there anything holding users and builders in place? | 12 |
Relative Valuation | Against comparable assets, is it cheap or rich on the evidence? | 12 |
Market Structure | Liquidity, trend, drawdown and volatility conditions | 8 |
The weights are the opinionated part, and they are published rather than hidden: supply mechanics carry more than three times the weight of market structure. Whether you agree with that is a fair argument to have. You cannot have it at all with a scoring system that will not show you its weights.
A dimension's contribution is its score divided by 5, multiplied by its weight. The six contributions add to the published score out of 100. One full step on a 0 to 5 dimension is therefore worth one fifth of that dimension's weight: 5.6 points on tokenomics, 4.4 on usage, 1.6 on market structure.
Step 2: read the two scores, and then ignore them for a minute
On our research record of November 4, 2026:
Bitcoin: A / Prime, 88.6, position 1.
Ethereum: A / Prime, 85.2, position 2.
Same letter, same tier name, 3.4 points between them. Positions are by our own score, not by market capitalization.
If you stopped here, you would conclude that our model reads these two assets as near equivalents. The six dimension scores say something more useful than that.
Step 3: put the dimensions side by side
Dimension | Weight | Bitcoin | Ethereum |
|---|---|---|---|
Tokenomics and Value Accrual | 28 | 5 | 4 |
On-chain Usage and Economics | 22 | 4.4 | 4.9 |
Security, Decentralization and Durability | 18 | 5 | 5 |
Ecosystem and Moat | 12 | 5 | 5 |
Relative Valuation | 12 | 2 | 2 |
Market Structure | 8 | 4 | 4 |
Four of the six are identical. A proof-of-work monetary network and a smart-contract platform, scored on the same scale, land on exactly the same number for security, for moat, for relative valuation and for market structure.
Two differ. They point in opposite directions.
Step 4: find out where the gap actually lives
Tokenomics and Value Accrual, weight 28. Bitcoin 5, Ethereum 4. One full step, worth 5.6 points to Bitcoin. Our model's written rationale for Bitcoin cites a fixed maximum supply of 21,000,000 with 20,105,365 circulating and no scheduled near-term unlocks. For Ethereum it notes there is no maximum supply cap, with value accrual supported instead by staking and fee burn mechanics.
On-chain Usage and Economics, weight 22. Ethereum 4.9, Bitcoin 4.4. Half a step, worth 2.2 points to Ethereum. Our model's rationale for Ethereum reads: "On-chain usage is very strong: Ethereum TVL is $43.76B and 30-day DeFi fees are $407.0M." For Bitcoin it reads that protocol activity is strong, "but it does not evidence user growth, fees, or TVL in a way that can be cleanly scored at the top level."
5.6 minus 2.2 is 3.4. That is the entire difference between 88.6 and 85.2. Nothing else in the two records contributes a single point of it.
This is the whole payoff of the method. The question "is Bitcoin better than Ethereum" has no answer. The question the scores actually answer is narrow and checkable: our model reads Bitcoin's supply mechanics as more favorable by one full step, reads Ethereum's on-chain economics as more favorable by half a step, and the first of those is worth more points than the second. If you weight usage more heavily than we do, you now know precisely how far apart you and the model are, and in which direction.
Step 5: check the arithmetic yourself
Bitcoin, scored November 4, 2026. Points banked of the weight available:
Tokenomics and Value Accrual: 28.00 of 28
On-chain Usage and Economics: 19.36 of 22
Security, Decentralization and Durability: 18.00 of 18
Ecosystem and Moat: 12.00 of 12
Relative Valuation: 4.80 of 12
Market Structure: 6.40 of 8
Total: 88.56 of 100, published as 88.6
Ethereum, scored November 4, 2026:
Tokenomics and Value Accrual: 22.40 of 28
On-chain Usage and Economics: 21.56 of 22
Security, Decentralization and Durability: 18.00 of 18
Ecosystem and Moat: 12.00 of 12
Relative Valuation: 4.80 of 12
Market Structure: 6.40 of 8
Total: 85.16 of 100, published as 85.2
A scoring system you can reconstruct with a calculator is a scoring system you can disagree with specifically. That is the point of publishing the weights.
Step 6: read what the missing points are telling you
The points an asset does not bank are more informative than the ones it does.
Both of these assets give up exactly the same 7.20 points on Relative Valuation, scoring 2 of 5. Our model's rationale for Bitcoin says that on the supplied data it "is not clearly cheap on peer-relative metrics." For Ethereum it says relative valuation "appears rich on the supplied data: market cap is $281.1B while 30-day fees are $407.0M."
That is worth stopping on, because it cuts against the natural reading of a top grade. Our highest grade is not a statement that an asset is cheap. On this record, the two highest-scoring assets we rate are both marked down on price relative to peers, and they still grade A, because supply mechanics, security and moat carry 58 of the 100 points between them and valuation carries 12.
A high grade and a high price can live in the same record. Any rating that cannot show you that tension is hiding something.
Step 7: remember what a letter cannot carry
Two more things the letter on its own will not tell you.
The bands are wide. On our scale, A is 80 and above, B is 60 to just under 80, C is 40 to just under 60, and F is below 40. Two assets can share a letter with almost twenty points between them, which is why the score and the dimensions matter more than the grade.
A letter is not only a score. Our model also runs nine named screens for things like insider-concentrated supply, unsustainable yield mechanics and custody that can freeze or seize. A screen that trips places an asset in F at any score, including a score in the A band. So the grade is a floor test and a measurement at the same time, and a score alone will not tell you which one moved.
How to use this on your own pair
Pick two assets you would genuinely consider against each other.
Score both on the same dimensions, in the same order, with weights you have written down in advance. Writing the weights first is what stops you from rationalizing the answer you already wanted.
Find the dimensions where the two are identical and set them aside. They are not where your decision lives.
Convert the remaining differences into points, and see whether they cancel.
Look hardest at the points neither asset banked. That is where the next change is most likely to come from.
You can do this on paper. The reason most people do not is not difficulty, it is that collecting the evidence for six dimensions on two assets takes longer than reading a price chart.
Where these numbers came from
Every figure above is CryptoGrade's own published research record, read on November 5, 2026, and dated to the morning of November 4, 2026. Our grades, scores, positions, dimension scores and the written rationale behind each dimension are all published records that change as the evidence does.
Bitcoin's full record is at cryptograde.ai/tokens/bitcoin and Ethereum's is at cryptograde.ai/tokens/ethereum. The six dimensions and their weights are on our framework page. Logged out you can read our top 10 by position; the rest of what we publish, including the six dimension scores and the rationale behind each one that this piece is built on, needs a free account, and you can create one here. If you would rather be told when a grade you care about changes than go looking, CryptoGrade Alerts is free with that account.
For a longer worked piece on a related question, how a staking yield is actually constructed and what it does not tell you, our founder's research report is on our blog.
