KyberSwap vs ParaSwap
Neutral on-chain benchmarking of slippage, revert rates, and overall execution quality.
KyberSwap shows tighter execution than ParaSwap on ClearTrace's on-chain slippage benchmark on Ethereum, 81.4 vs 69.1 out of 100 (a 12.3-point edge), measured across 16,607 and 5,919 benchmarked transactions there. Slippage, revert rate, and MEV exposure are scored separately. The gap is not the same on every chain these two share: Base (within measurement noise, 1.9 points). ClearTrace publishes one chain rather than a blend, so read this as a finding about Ethereum. (data as of September 29, 2026)
Protocol Scorecard
| KyberSwap | ParaSwap | |
|---|---|---|
| Slippage Score (0-100) | 81.4 Ethereum |
69.1 Ethereum |
| Revert Rate Ethereum ยท consistently-succeeding senders |
1.44% | 0.45% |
| Trades Analyzed Ethereum |
16,607 | 5,919 |
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.
KyberSwap 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 flow ClearTrace benchmarked, KyberSwap posted a slippage score of 81.4/100 versus 69.1/100 for ParaSwap, a clear edge of 12.3 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 gap is not the same on every chain these two share: Base (within measurement noise, 1.9 points). 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. KyberSwap was measured over 16,607 benchmarked transactions (25% of its benchmarked flow) and ParaSwap over 5,919 benchmarked transactions (36% of its benchmarked flow).
The other axis is reliability: a swap that reverts on-chain still costs gas and a missed price. On Ethereum, ParaSwap's revert rate is 0.45% over 26,427 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.
On this data, KyberSwap holds the stronger slippage score on Ethereum, but the gap reflects routing and slippage differences rather than one venue being universally better. That edge is a statement about Ethereum. 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, KyberSwap or ParaSwap?
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 Ethereum, ClearTrace's publication chain, KyberSwap edges out ParaSwap, 81.4/100 versus 69.1/100 (a 12.3-point gap). ClearTrace compares the two on one shared chain rather than setting one venue's all-chain rollup against another's. The gap is not the same on every chain these two share: Base (within measurement noise, 1.9 points). ClearTrace publishes one chain rather than a blend, so read this as a finding about Ethereum.
Does KyberSwap 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, KyberSwap was tighter on Ethereum (~18.6 bps vs ~30.9 bps). For MEV specifically, the dashboard surfaces detected sandwich activity as a separate metric.
Is KyberSwap or ParaSwap better for large trades?
For large orders, aggregators such as KyberSwap 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 KyberSwap vs ParaSwap?
A revert is a swap transaction that fails on-chain: the trader pays gas but gets no fill. On Ethereum, KyberSwap's revert rate is 1.44% and ParaSwap's is 0.45%. 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.