Both launched in 2017 as non-custodial, subscription-priced third-party bot platforms. On the same scale, Bitsgap scores 68/100 and 3Commas scores 60/100 — Bitsgap edges ahead, mainly on security track record and cost structure. Below we break both down, then note the one layer both still lack.
Want TradingView signal integration, deeper exchange coverage (15+), and a toolbox for experienced quant traders → 3Commas. Want a cleaner security record, plus the COMBO bot and a free tier to try → Bitsgap, which is why it scores higher. Both have no confirmed Chinese support, lack platform-level live proof, and require manual tuning — if those are your sticking points, see the third option at the end.
| Dimension | 3Commas | Bitsgap |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Non-custodial 3rd-party bot platform | Non-custodial 3rd-party bot platform |
| Founded | 2017 (9 yrs) | 2017 (9 yrs) |
| Exchange support | 15+ | 17+ |
| Bot types | 4 (DCA/Grid/Signal/Smart Trade) | 7 (incl. COMBO/QFL/BTD/LOOP) |
| Smart trading / terminal | Mature Smart Trade terminal | Smart Orders + AI assistant |
| TradingView signals | ✓ Direct integration | Limited support |
| Entry subscription | Starter $20 monthly, $15/mo annual | Basic $29 monthly, $23/mo annual |
| Free tier | None (trial only) | ✓ Yes (Evedex + demo) |
| Major security incident | 2022 API-key leak incident | None on public record |
| UI languages | 7 languages (incl. machine-translated Chinese) | Official site is multilingual (incl. Chinese); app unconfirmed |
| Localized support | English only | Unconfirmed |
| Platform-level live proof | None | Marketing aggregate claims (not live API) |
| Methodology score | 60/100 | 68/100 |
Both are non-custodial (funds stay on your own exchange; the platform cannot withdraw). The difference is history: 3Commas had a large-scale API-key theft incident in 2022 (victims claim about $22M; ZachXBT at the time verified 44 victims totalling $14.8M); the platform first blamed phishing, and its CEO confirmed on 2022-12-28 that the leaked data was genuine. Bitsgap has 9 years with no major public security incident. On our methodology their safety dimensions score 23/30 and 25/30. See the 3Commas review and Bitsgap review.
Both are subscription-based (charged whether you win or lose). Bitsgap entry is Basic at $29/mo billed monthly or $23/mo billed annually, and it has a free tier to test at zero cost; 3Commas Starter is $20/mo billed monthly or $15/mo billed annually (lower entry) but with more fragmented feature gating. Overall cost transparency is slightly better on Bitsgap (12/15 vs 3Commas 10/15).
Bitsgap 68/100 vs 3Commas 60/100. The gap comes from three places: security record (no 2022-style incident), cost transparency (free tier, clearer entry structure), and aggregate-data disclosure ($203M claimed annual user profit, etc.). But both lack platform-level live data you can independently verify.
Yes. Run each through the bot safety checklist (11 questions) to get your own Pass/Warning result, then compare against our scores.
3Commas and Bitsgap both have no confirmed Chinese support, both need tuning, and neither has platform-level live proof. If that is your concern, CoinTech2u is the live-proof baseline in our 5-way comparison — non-custodial, pay-on-profit (charged only when a trade closes in profit), multilingual incl. Chinese. Decide for yourself.
AI Trading Bot - Free Registration