1inch vs CoWSwap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on 1inch's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.93 bps, closer to zero than the 1.5 bps this reading moves between syncs, so its score reflects the composition of that flow rather than execution cost, and it cannot be set against CoWSwap's. 1inch scores 87.7 out of 100 over 23,000 benchmarked transactions on Ethereum and CoWSwap 82.4 over 13,244 on Ethereum; read them separately, not as a ranking. (data as of October 5, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| 1inch | CoWSwap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 87.7 Ethereum |
82.4 Ethereum |
| Trades Analyzed Ethereum |
23,000 | 13,244 |
1inch and CoWSwap are both DEX aggregators: rather than holding liquidity themselves, they split each order across many underlying pools to find the best available price. Because both compete on routing quality, the difference between them shows up in execution (realized slippage and MEV exposure) far more than in their headline rates.
Across the flow ClearTrace benchmarked, 1inch posted a slippage score of 87.7/100 versus 82.4/100 for CoWSwap; the two are not ranked against each other here, for the reason given below. Both figures are measured on Ethereum, ClearTrace's publication chain. The score reflects realized slippage only, derived from median slippage versus a minute-level off-chain reference price (Dune prices.usd, an interpolated 5-minute exchange-aggregate feed and not a VWAP), where a higher number means lower slippage. The median is taken over individual fills, while the counts below are distinct transactions, and one transaction can contain several fills. MEV exposure and revert rates are tracked as separate metrics. 1inch was measured over 23,000 benchmarked transactions (81% of its benchmarked flow) and CoWSwap over 13,244 benchmarked transactions (71% of its benchmarked flow).
The other axis is reliability, but it is not one we will rank these two on. 1inch and CoWSwap settle differently, so their on-chain revert rates are not comparable: 1inch is a router venue, where the user signs and submits the swap transaction, so a failed swap fails on-chain and is counted; CoWSwap is a batch auction venue, where the user signs an order and a solver settles it in a batch, so orders that cannot be filled never become transactions at all. CoWSwap's on-chain revert rate is therefore structurally near zero regardless of how reliably it fills, and putting that number next to a router's would overstate its reliability rather than measure it. ClearTrace ranks revert rates only within an execution model. For a like-for-like reliability read, compare 1inch and CoWSwap each against venues that settle the way they do; the live aggregator leaderboard tags every venue with its execution model.
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on 1inch's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.93 bps, closer to zero than the 1.5 bps this reading moves between syncs, so its score reflects the composition of that flow rather than execution cost, and it cannot be set against CoWSwap's. The slippage figure is the median absolute gap against the minute-level off-chain reference price, so it cannot tell a cost from a gain of the same size. Where most of a venue's fills land on the favourable side, the resulting number is describing what that flow is — market-maker inventory, vault rebalancing, searcher activity — rather than what a user would pay. Both figures stay published, and the reasoning is in our methodology write-up.
Execution-quality research, in your inbox
Periodic on-chain findings on DEX slippage, revert rates, and aggregator routing. No spam.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which has better execution quality, 1inch or CoWSwap?
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on 1inch's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.93 bps, closer to zero than the 1.5 bps this reading moves between syncs, so its score reflects the composition of that flow rather than execution cost, and it cannot be set against CoWSwap's. 1inch scored 87.7/100 on Ethereum and CoWSwap 82.4/100 on Ethereum, but those are not comparable on this metric.
Does 1inch or CoWSwap offer better MEV protection?
ClearTrace publishes a slippage-based score and per-aggregator revert rates, not a per-aggregator MEV-protection score. On slippage the two are not comparable here: 1inch's ~12.3 bps is a median absolute gap over flow that mostly settles in the taker's favour, so it is not a cost a user would pay. For MEV specifically, the dashboard surfaces detected sandwich activity as a separate metric.
Is 1inch or CoWSwap better for large trades?
For large orders, aggregators such as 1inch can split a trade across multiple pools to reduce price impact, which often helps on size. The right venue still depends on the specific pair and amount. The live dashboard tracks current execution quality.
What is the revert rate of 1inch vs CoWSwap?
A revert is a swap transaction that fails on-chain: the trader pays gas but gets no fill. ClearTrace does not publish a revert-rate comparison for 1inch vs CoWSwap. 1inch and CoWSwap settle differently, so their on-chain revert rates are not comparable: 1inch is a router venue, where the user signs and submits the swap transaction, so a failed swap fails on-chain and is counted; CoWSwap is a batch auction venue, where the user signs an order and a solver settles it in a batch, so orders that cannot be filled never become transactions at all. CoWSwap's on-chain revert rate is therefore structurally near zero regardless of how reliably it fills, and putting that number next to a router's would overstate its reliability rather than measure it. ClearTrace ranks revert rates only within an execution model. Each venue's revert rate is published on the ClearTrace aggregator leaderboard alongside its execution model, and ranked only against venues that settle the way it does.