What are the most popular dark web marketplaces for credit card fraud in 2025?

1. How the evidence lines up — recurring market names and their specialties

Across the analyses, several platforms appear repeatedly, with Brian’s Club and Russian Market singled out for their heavy emphasis on stolen credit‑card dumps and personal information, while STYX Market is identified as specializing in broader financial‑crime tools and laundering services. Abacus and TorZon are presented as general‑purpose markets that nonetheless list large volumes of card data. Reports compiled in 2024 and 2025 list these markets as high‑traffic venues for CVVs, Track1/Track2 dumps, BIN checkers, and related fraud tools, making them the most cited sources for card fraud activity during this period ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. Date signals and persistence — which names survived 2024 into 2025 reporting

Contemporary reporting shows that several marketplaces long associated with carding either persisted under new branding or were replaced by successor sites. A Cyble report updated in October 2024 enumerates STYX, Brian’s Club, Russian Market, BidenCash, Abacus, Torzon and WeTheNorth as dominant through 2024, and multiple 2025 analyses echo those names or list close variants such as Exodus or Real and Rare, indicating a degree of continuity and market persistence despite law‑enforcement disruptions and voluntary closures ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Conflicts and gaps — differing lists, missing dates, and methodological limits

The datasets diverge on a few specific names and dates: one source lists Abacus and TorZon among the top seven markets of 2025, another highlights Exodus and BriansClub without firm publication dates, and several older pieces document past closures like UniCC without providing a current replacement landscape. Several analyses lack explicit publication timestamps, which weakens chronological certainty. These inconsistencies reflect both research limitations and an operational reality: dark‑web markets frequently change addresses, names, and operator teams, producing unavoidable variance across reports ^{[2] [4] [5]}.

4. Product types and pricing signals — what “popular” means in practice

Reports converge on what is sold: CVVs, fullz, card dumps, BIN checkers, and account takeover tools dominate listings and explain why these platforms are labeled “popular” for card fraud. One analysis catalogs price ranges from a few cents up to hundreds of dollars per record and notes supporting services such as CVV checkers and Track1 generators, implying mature supply chains and diversified revenue models for vendors and market operators. The presence of ancillary tools and services on these markets reinforces their role not just as listing platforms but as integrated fraud ecosystems ^{[3] [1]}.

5. Interpretations, potential agendas, and what’s omitted

Sources compiled here are oriented toward threat monitoring and cybersecurity reporting; industry and security firms emphasize persistence and risk, which may amplify continuity narratives. Conversely, some pieces focus on historical takedowns, underlining enforcement successes but omitting market reappearances. Neither strand fully captures the transient reseller networks, closed invitation‑only forums, or encrypted private channels that also trade card data, so public market lists underrepresent the full illicit economy and may bias attention toward larger, English‑language storefronts ^{[6] [7] [4]}.

6. Bottom line for researchers and defenders — names to watch and caveats to apply

For 2025 monitoring and defensive posture, the recurrent marketplaces—Brian’s Club, Russian Market, STYX, Abacus, TorZon/Torzon, BidenCash, and Exodus/Real‑and‑Rare variants—constitute the highest‑value watchlist derived from cross‑report synthesis. Analysts must pair marketplace tracking with supply‑chain and payment‑fraud telemetry, and treat specific market lists as highly provisional because operators routinely migrate or rebrand following law‑enforcement action or market competition. Use these platform names as starting points for indicator development, not as an exhaustive or immutable taxonomy ^{[1] [2] [3]}.