All postsRSS

CCXT vs everything else: we compared it with every exchange SDK we could find

One page per alternative — CCXT against cryptofeed, and against the official SDK of all 104 exchanges it supports. Including the venues that turn out to have no SDK at all.

By CCXT Team

Every crypto integration starts with the same decision: call the exchange API directly, use its official SDK, reach for a specialist library — or build on CCXT. It is a fair question, and answering it honestly takes more than a feature table.

So we wrote one comparison per alternative. There is now a page for every single exchange CCXT supports, plus the multi-exchange libraries people weigh CCXT against.

Each page puts the same task side by side in both libraries, tables the concrete differences, and carries a section on what the alternative does better. That section is not decoration. A comparison with no concessions is an advertisement, and readers can tell.

What surprised us while writing them

A lot of exchanges have no SDK at all. Not an old one — none. Bitstamp publishes no client library. bitteamgroup has zero public repositories. BitTrade ships documentation and nothing else. For roughly a quarter of the venues, the honest comparison is not CCXT against a rival library, it is CCXT against writing signing, pagination, rate limiting and reconnect logic yourself. Those pages say so.

Several exchanges point at CCXT themselves. Tokocrypto names CCXT as its authorised SDK provider. bit.team's docs list CCXT as the integration path. Paymium's API documentation uses CCXT in its own examples. That is worth more than anything we could claim on our own behalf.

Official SDKs go stale quietly. Blockchain.com’s official client was archived in January 2026 and covers REST only. Four of Coinbase’s five Prime SDKs are archived. KuCoin’s older per-language SDKs are archived in favour of a universal one. Bitvavo’s Python and Node clients are current while its Java, Go and PHP wrappers are not. None of this is a knock on those teams — maintaining a client library per language is genuinely hard, which is rather the point of a single transpiled codebase.

And sometimes the vendor SDK is simply better at something. Bybit’s community TypeScript SDK is excellent. Cryptofeed ships storage backends CCXT deliberately does not have. Hyperliquid’s own SDK exposes vault and RFQ features we do not model. Those pages say that too.

Multi-exchange libraries

The tools people genuinely weigh CCXT against when choosing an architecture rather than a venue.

  • CCXT vs Cryptofeed — Both normalise market data across venues. Cryptofeed is an AGPL Python feed handler with storage backends; CCXT is an MIT trading API in seven languages.

Exchange APIs and official SDKs

One page per venue, comparing CCXT with whatever that exchange actually publishes — 94 of them.

Regional entities and product lines

CCXT ships these as their own classes because they are separate hosts, separate accounts or separate product lines — they inherit a parent exchange’s implementation, and these pages cover only what differs.

How the numbers were checked

Every CCXT-side figure on these pages — capability counts, endpoint counts, rate limits — is read out of the source tree by a script rather than typed from memory, and each page states the library version it was measured against. Competitor figures were read from each project’s own repository on the day the page was written.

That mattered more than expected. htx looks like it has a testnet until you notice its test URLs are commented out, so setSandboxMode(true) raises NotSupported for it. Ten exchanges inherit their capabilities from a parent class, so reading their file alone reports a fraction of what they actually support — binanceus comes out as 1 capability instead of 103 that way.

If you spot something wrong or out of date, please tell us — alternatives improve, and we would rather be corrected than wrong. Open an issue or say so on Discord.

Browse all comparisons