Unhosted vs RugCheck
RugCheck reads a Solana token's settings, holders and liquidity. Unhosted reads how the token was launched and traded (wallet farms, bundled launches, wallet rings, pulled liquidity) and also covers Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain and Robinhood Chain. On the same 37 new Solana tokens, 12 lost at least 90% of their price or liquidity within 7 days: Unhosted had warned on 8 of them, RugCheck on 3.
We make Unhosted, so we published everything: every token, both ratings and what happened next are in the rug checker test and its open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Both checkers are free and need no account. Try a token in Unhosted's rug checker or on rugcheck.xyz.
Unhosted or RugCheck: which caught more rugs?
On 21 October 2026 we ran 40 Solana tokens launched in the previous two days through both checkers within the same hour, then read each token's pool 24 hours and 7 days later. 37 had at least $1,000 in the pool at the check, enough to score. Unhosted warned on more of the tokens that went bad:
| Same 37 new Solana tokens | Unhosted | RugCheck |
|---|---|---|
| Rated danger / caution / OK | 13 / 12 / 12 | 7 / 17 / 13 |
| Went bad within 24 hours (7): warned before | 6 of 7 | 1 of 7 |
| Went bad within 7 days (12): warned before | 8 of 12 | 3 of 12 |
| Rated OK, went bad within 7 days | 4 of 12 | 9 of 13 |
| Rated danger, went bad within 7 days | 6 of 13 | 3 of 7 |
"Went bad" means the pool kept less than 10% of its liquidity, or the token less than 10% of its price, read from GeckoTerminal. "Warned" means a danger or caution rating (RugCheck: DANGER or WARNING).
Where they split, it mattered: 4 tokens that went bad within 7 days were rated danger by Unhosted and GOOD by RugCheck, and 1 the other way round. Agreement is no guarantee either: 3 of the 6 tokens both rated OK went bad within 7 days.
This is one night's sample of 40 tokens, so read it as evidence, not a verdict. A danger rating says the launch or the trading looks rigged, not that the price will fall this week: 7 of the 13 tokens Unhosted rated danger had not gone bad 7 days later.
Do they give false alarms on big tokens?
We also checked six long-lived Solana tokens: BONK, WIF, POPCAT, Fartcoin, JUP and RAY. Unhosted rated all six OK. RugCheck rated five GOOD and Raydium's RAY DANGER, with a risk score of 15,646, mainly for "Top 10 holders high ownership".
What does each one check?
| Unhosted | RugCheck | |
|---|---|---|
| Chains | 13, including Solana, Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain and Robinhood Chain | Solana (and Fogo) |
| Token settings | Mint, freeze, fee and hook settings | Mint and freeze authority, mutable metadata |
| Holders | Top 10 share; launch snipers, bundlers and insiders still holding | Top holders, insider networks |
| How it is traded | Wallet farms, bundled launches, wallet rings, automated trading | — |
| Creator | Creators who rugged other tokens before | Creator history of rugged tokens |
| Liquidity | Pool size, market cap against liquidity, pulled liquidity | Locked share of liquidity, low liquidity |
| Can-you-sell test | Stored test trade on EVM chains | — (reads Solana token settings) |
| Answer | A rating with a one-line reason | GOOD, WARNING or DANGER from a risk score |
| Price | Free, no sign-up | Free, no sign-up |
RugCheck's features as shown on its public pages and API on 21–22 October 2026.
Why do they disagree?
They look at different evidence. Of the 40 new tokens:
- RugCheck warned on 27, most often for low liquidity (20), one wallet holding a large share (6), the top 10 holders owning too much (4), high ownership (3) and a high market cap per holder (3).
- Unhosted warned on 28, most often for a bundled launch, where many wallets bought in the same block (21), trading from a farm of related wallets (20), a ring of wallets trading with each other (6), automated trading (6), liquidity pulled suddenly (4) and wallets linked to the creator selling (4).
RugCheck's warnings were mostly about thin liquidity, and none of the 17 tokens it rated WARNING went bad within 7 days. Unhosted's were mostly about who was trading: 7 of the 12 tokens that went bad had been flagged by Unhosted for a bundled launch and a wallet farm, and RugCheck had rated 5 of those 7 GOOD. RugCheck caught one that Unhosted missed: SAYLOR3, flagged for "Creator history of rugged tokens" and "Mint Authority still enabled".
Should I use Unhosted or RugCheck?
- Buying a new Solana token: run both and go with the worse rating. In this test Unhosted warned on more of the tokens that went bad; RugCheck shows more detail on token settings (mint, freeze, metadata, locked liquidity).
- Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain or Robinhood Chain: RugCheck does not cover them. Unhosted does, with a stored test trade and the buy and sell tax on EVM chains. See how GoPlus and Honeypot.is compare.
- Who is buying and selling it now: Unhosted's AI token reports show the holder flows next to the scam check.
Is RugCheck accurate?
On the tokens we tested, a GOOD from RugCheck was not a safe sign: 9 of the 13 new Solana tokens it rated GOOD lost at least 90% of their price or liquidity within 7 days (Unhosted: 4 of the 12 it rated OK). Its DANGER ratings held up about as well as Unhosted's: 3 of 7 went bad, against 6 of 13. On long-lived tokens it rated Raydium's RAY DANGER.
What does a RugCheck score mean?
RugCheck turns a token's risk score into its label: under 1,000 is GOOD, 1,000 to 4,999 is WARNING, and 5,000 or more is DANGER. We read those cut-offs from rugcheck.xyz's own page code on 21 October 2026. A higher score means more or worse risks: BONK scored 101 (GOOD, with a "Mutable metadata" warning) and RAY 15,646 (DANGER). Its API also gives the score on a 0–100 scale: 7 for BONK, 56 for RAY.
Is there a RugCheck alternative for Ethereum, Base and BNB Chain?
Yes. RugCheck covers Solana (and Fogo), so on EVM chains use a checker that test-sells the token. Unhosted covers 13 chains and shows a stored test trade with the buy and sell tax on EVM chains; Honeypot.is simulates a live buy and sell on Ethereum, BNB Chain and Base; GoPlus reads the contract on 44 chains. See how the three compared on the same tokens.