CoWSwap vs KyberSwap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
KyberSwap shows tighter execution than CoWSwap on ClearTrace's on-chain slippage benchmark, 91.5 vs 88.6 out of 100 (a 2.9-point edge), measured across 45,504 and 15,189 benchmarked trades. Slippage, revert rate, and MEV exposure are scored separately. (data as of July 15, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| CoWSwap | KyberSwap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 88.6 | 91.5 |
| Trades Analyzed | 15,189 | 45,504 |
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 trades ClearTrace benchmarked, KyberSwap posted a slippage score of 91.5/100 versus 88.6/100 for CoWSwap — a meaningful but not decisive edge of 2.9 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. KyberSwap was measured over 45,504 trades and CoWSwap over 15,189.
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 this data, KyberSwap 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, CoWSwap or KyberSwap?
Based on ClearTrace's slippage score (median slippage vs a VWAP baseline), KyberSwap edges out CoWSwap, 91.5/100 versus 88.6/100 (a 2.9-point gap).
Does CoWSwap 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, KyberSwap was tighter (~8.5 bps vs ~11.4 bps). For MEV specifically, the dashboard surfaces detected sandwich activity as a separate metric.
Is CoWSwap or KyberSwap better for large trades?
For large orders, aggregators such as CoWSwap 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 CoWSwap vs KyberSwap?
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 CoWSwap vs KyberSwap. 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. 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.