ClearTrace Scorecard · Edition 1 of a recurring series
DEX Aggregator Execution Scorecard
Edition 1 — July 2026
The rated record of DEX aggregator execution quality: quote accuracy, execution
slippage, revert rates, and RFQ routing at size — measured the same way for every aggregator,
by a third party with no routing product, and frozen so it can't be edited after the fact.
Chain: Ethereum ·
Data frozen: 2026-07-04 04:04 UTC ·
Published: 2026-07-04 ·
Snapshot: scorecard-edition-1.json
SHA-256: a010d40ed952cb8701b96a1bc9c1d00745c3447fd3858b8ef86eca6208d56bb3
Why a rated edition exists
Every aggregator claims best price and high reliability, and those claims are
self-reported — published by the routing product being measured. Meanwhile,
since 1 July 2026, MiCA transposes MiFID-style best-execution duties into
crypto: best-ex must be evidenced, with multi-year record-keeping, not asserted.
Compliance dashboards (e.g. DefiLlama's
MiCA tracker) cover exchange-level obligations — not execution quality at the routing
layer, where the trades actually happen.
This scorecard is the missing instrument: a neutral, methodology-published,
third-party rated record. Each edition is numbered, dated, and hashed. A rating you
can cite in a governance forum, a marketing page, or a best-execution file — and one nobody
(including us) can quietly back-date or revise.
Edition 1 findings
Post-publication note (2026-07-05). A sender-concentration audit run after this
edition froze found that the Odos revert figure below is dominated by address-rotating solver
bots, not user transactions failing — the rate experienced by genuine Odos users on Ethereum
is ≈0.2%. Revert methodology moved to v5 (a stronger sender-level bot filter) on 2026-07-05 and
Edition 2 will use it. Per this scorecard's integrity model, the Edition 1 snapshot, its findings
text, and its SHA-256 hash are unchanged — the record stays frozen, and corrections are
published as dated notes like this one. The other findings are unaffected.
Post-publication note (2026-07-14). The first finding below is withdrawn.
It compares revert rates across venues that do not settle the same way, and that comparison is
not valid. A revert rate measures reliability only where the failing transaction is the
user's own — that is, on a
router, where the user signs and submits the swap.
On a batch-auction venue (CoW Protocol) or an intent venue (1inch Fusion, which settles through
the Limit Order Protocol), a solver or resolver submits instead: an order that cannot be filled
never becomes a transaction at all, so the on-chain revert rate is structurally near zero however
reliably the venue actually fills.
Tokenlon, named above as the reliable end of the spread at 0.04%, is an RFQ venue for which we
never established who submits the settlement transaction. We therefore cannot support the claim
that 0.04% is the rate at which its users' swaps fail, and it should not have been placed
opposite a router. Together with the 2026-07-05 note above,
both ends of the finding are
unsupported: the spread it reports is in substantial part an artifact of how the venues settle,
not a measure of how reliably they fill. The 2026-07-05 note closed by saying the other findings
were unaffected; that was itself incomplete, because this error was already present in the same
finding and we did not catch it.
The caution extends to the revert column of the table below. The figures for CoW Protocol
(0.11%), the 1inch Limit Order Protocol (0.84%), Tokenlon (0.04%), DODO X (0.15%) and Bebop
(8.05%) are not comparable to the router figures beside them and must not be ranked against them.
Bebop runs both taker-submitted RFQ and solver-submitted JAM, so its figure mixes two populations
and is not well defined as a single rate.
ClearTrace now tags every venue with an execution model — router, batch auction, intent, or
unclassified where we have not established who submits — and ranks revert rates only within a
model. Venues we cannot establish are left unclassified and are not ranked at all, rather than
assumed. The
live leaderboard shows each venue's model, and Edition 2
will apply the model guard together with the v5/v6 revert methodology.
Per this scorecard's integrity model, the Edition 1 snapshot, its findings text, and its SHA-256
hash are
unchanged — the record stays frozen, and corrections are published as dated
notes like this one. Finding 2 rests on the same Odos figure addressed in the 2026-07-05 note.
Findings 3 and 4 do not use revert data and are unaffected.
- Reliability is the widest spread in DeFi routing. Odos reverts
23.78% of routing transactions — about 1 in
4, and 14.8× the direct-Uniswap baseline
(1.61%). At the other end, Tokenlon reverts just
0.04%.
- Accurate quotes don't imply reliable fills. Odos posts a rated
median quote gap of 0 bps — essentially perfect — while
failing 23.78% of its routing transactions on-chain. Quote
accuracy and execution reliability are separate dimensions; a scorecard that reports only
one is marketing.
- RFQ routing at size doesn't close the quote gap. KyberSwap routes
86% of sampled $1M flow through off-chain RFQ desks, yet posts
the widest rated quote gap (2.87 bps).
- Beating the venue default is rare. Against the direct-Uniswap execution
baseline (10.54 bps median), the aggregators that deliver
cheaper realized execution are: Bitget DEX (2.32 bps), 1inch (7.02 bps), Bebop (9.73 bps). Everyone else routes worse than the default
they're competing with.
The rated table
Rated = ≥30 realized fork-simulation quote samples spanning
≥7 days. On-chain metrics (slippage, reverts) cover all
trades/transactions in the window, not a sample. Baseline = the direct-venue default
aggregators are implicitly compared against.
| Aggregator | Status | Exec slippage | Revert rate |
RFQ @ $1M | Quote gap | Quote n | Routing txs |
|---|
| Bitget DEX | on-chain only | 2.32 bps | 1.29% | — | — | — | 52,904 |
| 1inch | rated | 7.02 bps | 2.16% | 0% | 0 bps | 968 | 99,483 |
| Bebop | on-chain only | 9.73 bps | 8.05% | — | — | — | 106,185 |
| Uniswap (direct venue) | baseline | 10.54 bps | 1.61% | 0% | 0 bps | 1,001 | 10,774 |
| KyberSwap | rated | 12.08 bps | 4.28% | 86% | 2.87 bps | 920 | 137,934 |
| Odos | rated | 14.3 bps | 23.78% | 0% | 0 bps | 831 | 2,090 |
| CoW Protocol | on-chain only | 15.72 bps | 0.11% | — | — | — | 47,118 |
| OpenOcean | on-chain only | 16.42 bps | 10.95% | — | — | — | 13,892 |
| 1inch Limit Order Protocol | on-chain only | 27.67 bps | 0.84% | — | — | — | 30,111 |
| SushiSwap | on-chain only | 34.9 bps | 4.8% | — | — | — | 26,313 |
| ParaSwap (Velora) | rated | 43.01 bps | 3.83% | 0% | 1 bps | 977 | 25,572 |
| Tokenlon | on-chain only | 64.48 bps | 0.04% | — | — | — | 2,789 |
| DODO X | on-chain only | — | 0.15% | — | — | — | 6,886 |
Verify this edition
The findings above are computed from a frozen snapshot. To verify nothing has changed since
publication, hash the snapshot and compare:
curl -s https://cleartracedata.com/static/data/scorecard-edition-1.json | shasum -a 256
a010d40ed952cb8701b96a1bc9c1d00745c3447fd3858b8ef86eca6208d56bb3
The snapshot is committed to a public git history at
publication time, which independently timestamps it.
Methodology & scope
Full methodology: cleartracedata.com/methodology and the
open-dataset README. In brief: execution slippage is the
median per-fill gap vs a 1-minute VWAP oracle over all on-chain trades; revert rate counts
failed routing transactions from raw on-chain data; quote accuracy is a forward-captured
fork-simulation sample (quoted vs realized); RFQ share is measured from the same sampler at
$1M notional. Aggregators we don't yet quote-sample appear with on-chain metrics only.
Preliminary cells are shown but never rated. Scope: Ethereum for this edition; the live
leaderboard is the free preview layer that accrues between
editions.
Cite or commission
Cite this edition as: ClearTrace DEX Aggregator Execution Scorecard, Edition 1
(July 2026), sha256:a010d40ed952… — link https://cleartracedata.com/scorecard/edition-1. For a private cut of your own routing
versus peers (per-pair, per-size, with the failure modes), or a subscription to future rated
editions for a best-execution evidence file,
book a working session.