1inch vs ParaSwap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
1inch shows tighter execution than ParaSwap on ClearTrace's on-chain slippage benchmark, 95.2 vs 87.8 out of 100 (a 7.4-point edge), measured across 19,409 and 9,470 benchmarked trades. Slippage, revert rate, and MEV exposure are scored separately. (data as of July 15, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| 1inch | ParaSwap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 95.2 | 87.8 |
| Revert Rate (bot-filtered) | 1.23% | 1.5% |
| Trades Analyzed | 19,409 | 9,470 |
1inch and ParaSwap 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 trades ClearTrace benchmarked, 1inch posted a slippage score of 95.2/100 versus 87.8/100 for ParaSwap — a clear edge of 7.4 points. The score reflects realized slippage only — derived from median slippage versus a 1-minute VWAP, where a higher number means lower slippage. MEV exposure and revert rates are tracked as separate metrics. 1inch was measured over 19,409 trades and ParaSwap over 9,470.
The other axis is reliability: a swap that reverts on-chain still costs gas and a missed price. After a sender-level filter that excludes solver and MEV-bot spam (methodology v5), 1inch's revert rate is 1.23% of 213,921 routing transactions versus 1.5% of 154,541 for ParaSwap, tx-weighted across chains. Rates are recalculated on every data refresh; the live aggregator leaderboard carries the current per-chain numbers.
On this data, 1inch holds the stronger slippage score, but the gap reflects routing and slippage differences rather than one venue being universally better — results shift with trade size, token pair, and market conditions, and MEV exposure and revert rates are separate considerations. Scores update on each data refresh; see our methodology for the full approach.
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 ParaSwap?
Based on ClearTrace's slippage score (median slippage vs a VWAP baseline), 1inch edges out ParaSwap, 95.2/100 versus 87.8/100 (a 7.4-point gap).
Does 1inch or ParaSwap offer better MEV protection?
ClearTrace publishes a slippage-based score and per-aggregator revert rates — not a per-aggregator MEV-protection score. On slippage, 1inch was tighter (~4.8 bps vs ~12.2 bps). For MEV specifically, the dashboard surfaces detected sandwich activity as a separate metric.
Is 1inch or ParaSwap 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 ParaSwap?
A revert is a swap transaction that fails on-chain — the trader pays gas but gets no fill. After ClearTrace's sender-level filter that excludes solver and MEV-bot spam, 1inch's revert rate is 1.23% and ParaSwap's is 1.5% of tracked routing transactions, tx-weighted across chains. Rates are recalculated on every data refresh; per-chain numbers are on the ClearTrace aggregator leaderboard.