OLI vs WalletExplorer

Name: OLI vs WalletExplorer OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

OLI leads on the only live benchmark. OLI wins on Best wallet labeling API provider (50.3% vs 19.9%).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 03:19:26 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

OLI

Open Labels Initiative, a community standard and shared dataset for EVM address labels. Distributes labels via GitHub and a public API.

WalletExplorer

Bitcoin address clusterer and labeler. Tracks exchange deposit clusters, mixers, and known services since 2013.

Side by side measurements

Best wallet labeling API provider

Aggregators

OLI

Leads

50.3 %

p99: 50.3%
rank: #4
samples: 5,578

WalletExplorer

Trails

19.9 %

p99: 19.9%
rank: #8
samples: 488

Coverage means the provider returned a non-empty label for the probed address, it says nothing about label quality or correctness. Read the EOA vs contract split before concluding: a provider can look strong overall while only labeling contracts (verified-source names) and missing every wallet. The Success column is fetch reliability (share of API calls that did not error), not labeling accuracy.

Frequently asked questions

OLI vs WalletExplorer: which one is better?

OLI and WalletExplorer are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. OLI leads on Best wallet labeling API provider. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is more reliable, OLI or WalletExplorer?

On the Best wallet labeling API provider benchmark, OLI leads at 50.3% versus WalletExplorer at 19.9%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the OLI vs WalletExplorer comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing — panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.