CoWSwap vs KyberSwap

CoWSwap and KyberSwap are effectively tied on ClearTrace's on-chain slippage benchmark on Ethereum, 82.4 vs 82.4 out of 100 (within measurement noise), so the better choice comes down to the specific token pair and trade size. The ordering is not the same on every chain these two share: Base (KyberSwap ahead by 5.6); Arbitrum (the ordering reverses there, on a cell too one-sided to quote as a cost comparison). ClearTrace publishes one chain rather than a blend, so read this as a finding about Ethereum. (data as of October 5, 2026)

Protocol Scorecard

CoWSwap 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, CoWSwap posted a slippage score of 82.4/100 versus 82.4/100 for KyberSwap, a statistical dead heat of 0.0 points on Ethereum. Ethereum is ClearTrace's publication chain: 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 ordering is not the same on every chain these two share: Base (KyberSwap ahead by 5.6); Arbitrum (the ordering reverses there, on a cell too one-sided to quote as a cost comparison). ClearTrace publishes one chain rather than a blend, so read this as a finding about Ethereum. 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. CoWSwap was measured over 13,244 benchmarked transactions (71% of its benchmarked flow) and KyberSwap over 15,241 benchmarked transactions (29% of its benchmarked flow).

The other axis is reliability, but it is not one we will rank these two on. CoWSwap and KyberSwap settle differently, so their on-chain revert rates are not comparable: 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; KyberSwap is a router venue, where the user signs and submits the swap transaction, so a failed swap fails on-chain and is counted. 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 CoWSwap and KyberSwap each against venues that settle the way they do; the live aggregator leaderboard tags every venue with its execution model.

On current data the two are effectively tied on Ethereum. Within measurement noise, either is a reasonable choice, and the better option often comes down to the specific token pair and trade size. We recalculate these scores on every data refresh; see our methodology for how they are derived.

View Live Data Dashboard

Execution-quality research, in your inbox

Periodic on-chain findings on DEX slippage, revert rates, and aggregator routing. No spam.

Subscribe