Cryptohopper combines indicators. anvas combines behaviours.
The closest thing in the category to a real strategy builder, with 130+ indicators in a no-code designer. Very strong at conditions — and a condition list is stateless, so it cannot express sequence or memory.
A strategy designer that assembles indicators into entry and exit conditions, plus a large marketplace of published templates.
A canvas where indicators are one node type among many, and the strategy can change what it is doing.
Cryptohopper pricing from USD 24.16/month, with a free tier. Free Pioneer tier; paid tiers raise coin limits, positions and strategy-check frequency. Checked 2026-08-27; verify before relying on it.
What Cryptohopper is
Cryptohopper is the closest thing in this category to a real strategy builder. Its strategy designer lets you combine over 130 indicators with logical operators into entry and exit conditions, without writing code. There is a large marketplace where designers publish templates, plus backtesting, paper trading, copy bots, market making and arbitrage on the higher tiers.
Of everything on this list it is the platform whose users are most likely to already think in terms of building rather than picking a preset. If you have outgrown template platforms, Cryptohopper is usually the next stop, and it is a reasonable one.
Where it stops
A strategy designer builds conditions. A condition is a question with a yes/no answer, evaluated fresh each time: is RSI below 30 and price above the 200 EMA?
That is a lot of expressive power, and for entry rules it is often enough. What it cannot express is anything with memory or sequence:
- This is my third entry, so size it smaller than the first two.
- I have been laddering for two hours; if it starts ranging instead, work the range.
- Only take this signal if the previous trade on this pair was a winner.
- Scale out a third at each target, then trail the rest — but only the rest.
Every one of those depends on something other than the current candle. A condition list is stateless by construction: it evaluates, it fires, it forgets. There is no "where am I in this sequence", because there is no sequence — just a rule that is true or false right now.
The second constraint is order of operations. A rule list is flat. Real strategies are ordered: check the regime, then filter the signal, then size it against volatility, then check exposure, then send. When everything is a rule in a list, that pipeline exists only implicitly, and when it does the wrong thing you have no place to look.
What anvas does differently
A graph is not flat and it is not stateless. Nodes execute in the order the edges connect them, so the pipeline is the thing you actually drew. A branch node lets the strategy be in one of several states — laddering, gridding, waiting, unwinding — and move between them when a condition says so. A counter is a node, so "third entry" is something the graph knows.
Indicators still exist, and they work the way they do everywhere else. They are just one node type rather than the whole vocabulary — the interesting part is what sits around them, like a slow trend gate over a fast trigger.
The visibility is the other half. In a rule list, a rule that did not fire is invisible. In a graph, you watch the value travel down the edge and stop at the node that rejected it. Sequence-dependent exits are the clearest example: scale out in thirds, trail the rest.
The actual question
If your strategy is fully described by "enter when these indicators agree, exit when these do", a strategy designer covers it and Cryptohopper builds a good one.
If you have ever tried to express "and then do something different" in a rule list and found there was nowhere to put it — that is the gap.