Polymarket and Kalshi are the two biggest prediction market platforms in 2026. Traders choosing between them usually compare fees, liquidity, and market selection. Almost nobody compares resolution risk — the chance that a market's outcome will be disputed, delaying your payout and freezing your capital.

We've scored markets on both platforms. Here's what the data shows.

The Fundamental Difference

Polymarket uses the UMA optimistic oracle. Anyone can propose a resolution, and anyone can dispute it by posting a bond. Disputes go to a vote by UMA token holders.

Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated exchange. Kalshi's internal team resolves markets based on pre-defined rules and authoritative data sources. There's no public dispute mechanism — Kalshi acts as the final arbiter.

This architectural difference has massive implications for resolution risk.

The Data

We've scored 164,000+ markets total, including 2,017 Kalshi markets (100% coverage) and the full Polymarket catalogue.

Metric Polymarket Kalshi
Markets scored 162,000+ 2,017
Dispute mechanism UMA oracle (public, decentralised) Kalshi internal (centralised, CFTC-regulated)
Dispute rate (historical) ~1.0% overall Near-zero public disputes
High-risk markets (>25% score) ~1,000 ~50
Median dispute risk score 8% 5%

Why Kalshi Has Lower Dispute Risk

  1. Centralised resolution: Kalshi's team writes the resolution criteria AND resolves the market. They can write unambiguous criteria because they control both sides.
  2. CFTC oversight: Regulatory pressure means Kalshi avoids ambiguous markets. They won't list "Will there be a ceasefire?" because the CFTC would question how they'd resolve it.
  3. Narrower market selection: Kalshi lists fewer, more structured markets. They tend toward binary financial events (rate decisions, economic data releases) with clear resolution sources.
  4. No public dispute mechanism: Even if a Kalshi resolution is controversial, there's no mechanism for traders to formally challenge it on-chain. Complaints go through customer support, not a governance vote.

Why Polymarket Has Higher Dispute Risk

  1. Anyone can create markets: Polymarket's permissionless design means ambiguous questions get listed. There's no gatekeeper screening for resolution clarity.
  2. Decentralised resolution: UMA token holders — not market experts — vote on disputes. They're interpreting ambiguous text, not making expert judgments.
  3. Broader market selection: Polymarket lists geopolitical, cultural, and social markets that inherently involve subjective interpretation. These are the most popular markets but also the most dispute-prone.
  4. Economic incentive to dispute: The UMA bond mechanism means disputing can be profitable if you're right. This creates an incentive to dispute marginal cases.

When to Choose Which Platform

Choose Kalshi When:

Choose Polymarket When:

The Cross-Platform Opportunity

When the same event is listed on both platforms, compare: - Price divergence: If Polymarket prices an event at 60% YES and Kalshi at 55%, there may be an arbitrage opportunity. - Resolution risk divergence: The Polymarket version might have vaguer resolution criteria than Kalshi's version. OracleMangle flags these differences.

This is where dispute risk intelligence creates alpha. If Polymarket's version of a market has high dispute risk but Kalshi's version is clean, you know which side to trade.

The Bottom Line

Kalshi is safer by design. Polymarket is more interesting by design. If you trade Polymarket, you need to actively manage dispute risk — either by reading resolution criteria carefully or by using automated screening.

We score every market on both platforms and send alerts when dispute risk is elevated. If you're choosing between platforms for a specific trade, check the dispute risk score first.


OracleMangle scores markets on both Polymarket and Kalshi. Check any market's dispute risk for free on Telegram.

Check any Polymarket or Kalshi market for dispute risk

Try Free on Telegram