Is Convexly a replacement for Artemis?

No. They answer different questions. Artemis answers 'how much is trading, where, and how activity is trending' at the market, protocol, and sector level, including a prediction-markets sector. Convexly answers 'does this prediction-market wallet's resolved record separate from chance, after correcting for how many wallets you looked at'. Many researchers would use both.

What does Artemis do better than Convexly?

Breadth of market and volume analytics. Artemis covers many chains, protocols, and sectors, and turns raw activity into dashboards a researcher can scan quickly, with prediction markets tracked at the market and volume level. Convexly does not attempt any of that: its scope is prediction-market wallet skill, primarily on Polymarket, plus the market-quality surfaces built on the same statistics.

What does Convexly do that a market-analytics terminal does not?

Statistical machinery on individual wallets and cohorts rather than aggregate volumes: every skill read carries a BCa bootstrap 95 percent interval reported alongside its resolved-position count; cohort screens apply a Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery-rate correction; enterprise cohort work is anchored by a size-matched negative control of 500 seeded random draws; and nulls are published, including against Convexly's own leaderboard, where 0 of the 35 testable wallets in the published top-50 cohort cleared the corrected bar in the frozen 2026-06-09 scan.

Which one should I use before following a trader?

Market-level volume and activity data does not tell you whether one wallet's record separates from luck. For Polymarket wallets, Convexly's free analyzer returns a four-state read (skilled, not separable from chance, insufficient, or flagged) with its 95 percent interval and resolved-position count, rather than a raw profit rank. A past read is not a forecast, and no read is an instruction to act.

Convexly vs Artemis for prediction markets

Side by side

Dimension	Artemis	Convexly
Primary job	Crypto analytics terminal: on-chain fundamentals, volumes, and sector dashboards, including a prediction-markets sector	Statistical audit of prediction-market wallet skill: does a record separate from chance
Coverage	Many chains, protocols, and sectors; prediction markets tracked at the market and volume level	Prediction markets, primarily Polymarket (cross-venue only via the published V1-M paper)
Unit of analysis	Markets, protocols, and sectors (aggregate volume and activity)	Individual wallets and cohorts (their resolved-position records)
What a number means	Metrics that summarize observed market and volume activity	A four-state statistical read per wallet (skilled / not separable from chance / insufficient / flagged), each state with a frozen threshold
Uncertainty	Not the product's framing	Every skill read carries a BCa bootstrap 95 percent interval alongside its resolved-position count; a point estimate is never published alone
Multiple-testing correction	Not the product's framing	Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction across every cohort screen (primary q = 0.10, with q = 0.05 / 0.20 sensitivity in enterprise work)
Chance baseline	Not the product's framing	Size-matched negative control: 500 seeded random cohorts run through the identical test in enterprise cohort audits
Negative results	Not part of the product	Published, including against its own cohort: 0 of 35 testable top-50 wallets cleared the corrected bar (2026-06-09 scan)
Best for	Tracking market and volume trends across crypto sectors	Deciding whether a prediction-market record is evidence of skill before acting on it

"Not the product's framing" is descriptive, not a criticism: a market-analytics terminal and a narrow wallet-skill audit layer are optimizing different things.

What Artemis does well

Artemis's strength is market and volume analytics. It covers many chains, protocols, and sectors, and turns raw on-chain activity into dashboards a researcher can scan quickly, with prediction markets tracked as one sector at the market and volume level. If your question is "how much is trading, where, and how is activity trending", that is the job Artemis is built for, and individual-wallet skill is not what it sets out to measure.

What Convexly does differently

Convexly is not trying to summarize the whole market. It applies statistical machinery to one domain: prediction-market wallet skill, primarily on Polymarket (cross-venue claims only via the published V1-M paper). Concretely:

A four-state skill read (skilled / not separable from chance / insufficient / flagged) on an individual wallet instead of a raw PnL rank or an aggregate volume figure, with every state gated by a frozen threshold.
Every read carries a BCa bootstrap 95 percent interval reported alongside its resolved-position count; a point estimate is never published on its own.
Cohort screens apply a Benjamini-Hochberg false-discovery-rate correction, and enterprise cohort work is anchored by a size-matched negative control of 500 seeded random draws.
Nulls are published, including against Convexly's own board: in the frozen 2026-06-09 scan, 0 of the 35 testable wallets in the published top-50 cohort cleared the corrected bar (full table).
Methods are frozen and version-controlled, and follow-up test designs are filed in public registries before the analyses run, as a standing practice documented on the research index.

Which one for which job

Tracking market and volume trends across crypto sectors, including prediction-market volumes: Artemis. Deciding whether a specific prediction-market record is evidence of skill before you act on it, including before you copy it: Convexly. The two are complementary, and the honest answer for many desks is both.

Check a Polymarket wallet free