Not All Crypto Fraud Tools Prevent Fraud. CEX Benchmark Study Puts Numbers to the Gap.

When it comes to onchain fraud prevention, not all tools are solving the same problem. Legacy blockchain analytics platforms were built for compliance and post-transaction investigation, tracing funds after they've moved and generating reports for regulators. A benchmark study conducted at a top-five global cryptocurrency exchange in August 2025 put a number on what that difference costs.

‍

Across three vendors evaluated on the same dataset, Hypernative identified 96% of tested addresses as confirmed scam-related. The two competing vendors identified 28% and 40%, respectively. 

‍

On potential exposure prevented, Hypernative flagged $1.8 million in at-risk funds. The other two vendors reached $65,000 and $110,000. 

‍

On alert timing, Hypernative generated signals in real time, at or before the first fraudulent transaction. The competing vendors issued alerts one month or more after the fact.

‍

‍

How to Pick a Fraud Vendor That Actually Prevents Loss

‍

The benchmarking results point to two questions any fraud or risk team should be asking when evaluating a solution.

‍

1. Timing. At what point in the withdrawal lifecycle does the tool generate its first alert? A system that flags activity weeks after the first transaction is a documentation tool, not a prevention tool. Real prevention requires screening at the point of withdrawal, before funds leave the platform.
2. Detection methodology. Static blocklists and address-level scoring models rely on prior history of known-bad addresses. Fresh wallets, which organized fraud operations create continuously, bypass these checks entirely. Effective detection requires network-level analysis: ML models and graph-based clustering that map relationships between addresses, including new ones with no individual transaction history, and connect them to known fraud infrastructure.

‍

For exchanges and institutions evaluating their current fraud stack, the benchmark offers a concrete reference point. The gap between vendors on the core metrics, accuracy, speed, and exposure prevented, is not marginal. It is the difference between a tool that stops fraud and one that records it.

‍

Join the Conversation

‍

We are hosting a session for fraud, risk, and compliance teams at exchanges, payment providers, and financial institutions who are thinking seriously about what prevention-first actually looks like in practice.

‍

The Onchain Fraud Prevention Blueprint: Why Investigation-First Is Failing Digital Asset Organizations

‍

🗓️April 9, 1 PM UTC / 9 AM EST

‍

Register here: https://luma.com/k2sddnh6

‍

Reach out for a demo of Hypernative’s solutions, tune into Hypernative’s blog and our social channels to keep up with the latest on cybersecurity in Web3.

‍

Secure everything you build, run and own in Web3 with Hypernative.

‍

‍Website | X (Twitter) | LinkedIn