Bitget Wallet vs KyberSwap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on Bitget Wallet's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.8 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 KyberSwap's. Bitget Wallet scores 96.0 out of 100 over 4,541 benchmarked transactions on Ethereum and KyberSwap 81.4 over 16,607 on Ethereum; read them separately, not as a ranking. (data as of September 29, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| Bitget Wallet | KyberSwap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 96.0 Ethereum |
81.4 Ethereum |
| Revert Rate Ethereum · consistently-succeeding senders |
0.42% | 1.44% |
| Trades Analyzed Ethereum |
4,541 | 16,607 |
Revert rates are measured on Ethereum and count only senders whose own transactions to these routers succeeded at least 90% of the time over the window, so they are bounded under 10% by that definition and are narrower than the share of all attempts that fail. See the methodology.
Bitget Wallet and KyberSwap 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, Bitget Wallet posted a slippage score of 96.0/100 versus 81.4/100 for KyberSwap; 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. Bitget Wallet was measured over 4,541 benchmarked transactions (58% of its benchmarked flow) and KyberSwap over 16,607 benchmarked transactions (25% of its benchmarked flow).
The other axis is reliability: a swap that reverts on-chain still costs gas and a missed price. On Ethereum, Bitget Wallet's revert rate is 0.42% over 36,144 transactions versus 1.44% over 56,387 for KyberSwap. Both figures count only senders whose own transactions to these routers succeeded at least 90% of the time over the measurement window (methodology v6), which is a filter on the outcome being measured: it holds the published rate under 10% by construction and drops anyone whose handful of swaps included a failure. Read it as the failure rate among consistently-succeeding senders, not as the share of all attempts that fail. Rates are recalculated on every data refresh; the live aggregator leaderboard carries the current per-chain numbers.
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on Bitget Wallet's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.8 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 KyberSwap'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, Bitget Wallet or KyberSwap?
ClearTrace does not rank these two on slippage. The median gap on Bitget Wallet's benchmarked fills on Ethereum against the oracle baseline is 0.8 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 KyberSwap's. Bitget Wallet scored 96.0/100 on Ethereum and KyberSwap 81.4/100 on Ethereum, but those are not comparable on this metric.
Does Bitget Wallet or KyberSwap 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: Bitget Wallet's ~4.0 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 Bitget Wallet or KyberSwap better for large trades?
For large orders, aggregators such as Bitget Wallet 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 Bitget Wallet vs KyberSwap?
A revert is a swap transaction that fails on-chain: the trader pays gas but gets no fill. On Ethereum, Bitget Wallet's revert rate is 0.42% and KyberSwap's is 1.44%. Both count only senders whose own transactions to these routers succeeded at least 90% of the time over the window, so the figure is the failure rate among consistently-succeeding senders rather than the share of all attempts that fail, and it is bounded under 10% by that definition. Rates are recalculated on every data refresh; per-chain numbers are on the ClearTrace aggregator leaderboard.