Camelot vs Uniswap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
Camelot shows tighter execution than Uniswap on ClearTrace's on-chain slippage benchmark on Arbitrum, 89.8 vs 86.2 out of 100 (a 3.6-point edge), measured across 46,690 and 587,185 benchmarked transactions there. Slippage, revert rate, and MEV exposure are scored separately. (data as of September 29, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| Camelot | Uniswap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 89.8 Arbitrum |
86.2 Arbitrum |
| Trades Analyzed Arbitrum |
46,690 | 587,185 |
Camelot and Uniswap are both decentralized exchanges (AMMs), where trades execute directly against on-chain liquidity pools. The comparison comes down to pool depth, fee tiers, and how exposed each venue's order flow is to MEV such as sandwich attacks.
Across the flow ClearTrace benchmarked, Camelot posted a slippage score of 89.8/100 versus 86.2/100 for Uniswap, a meaningful but not decisive edge of 3.6 points on Arbitrum. Arbitrum is the only chain these two are both benchmarked on: ClearTrace compares a pair on its publication chain when both venues are benchmarked there, and otherwise on the shared chain carrying the most data on the smaller side. Either way the comparison is one chain, not one venue's all-chain rollup set against another's, because two rollups cover different chains. 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. Camelot was measured over 46,690 benchmarked transactions (100% of its benchmarked flow) and Uniswap over 587,185 benchmarked transactions (37% of its benchmarked flow).
The sample sizes differ substantially (Uniswap: 587,185 transactions; Camelot: 46,690), so Camelot's score reflects a narrower slice of activity and may move as more volume is observed.
On this data, Camelot holds the stronger slippage score on Arbitrum, but the gap reflects routing and slippage differences rather than one venue being universally better. That edge is a statement about Arbitrum. 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, Camelot or Uniswap?
Based on ClearTrace's slippage score (median slippage vs a minute-level off-chain reference price from Dune prices.usd, which is not a VWAP) on Arbitrum, the only chain these two are both benchmarked on, Camelot edges out Uniswap, 89.8/100 versus 86.2/100 (a 3.6-point gap). ClearTrace compares the two on one shared chain rather than setting one venue's all-chain rollup against another's.
Does Camelot or Uniswap offer better MEV protection?
ClearTrace publishes a slippage-based score and per-aggregator revert rates, not a per-aggregator MEV-protection score. On slippage, Camelot was tighter on Arbitrum (~10.2 bps vs ~13.8 bps). For MEV specifically, the dashboard surfaces detected sandwich activity as a separate metric.
Is Camelot or Uniswap better for large trades?
For large orders, the venue with deeper liquidity for your pair usually wins on price impact. Both Camelot and Uniswap are AMMs, so compare pool depth for your token pair; the live dashboard tracks current execution quality.