Intent Networks

Intent Networks evaluated across bid set visibility, solver admission, network fee disclosure, and fallback when nobody fills.

11providers tracked

6ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)

12 November 2026Ranking snapshot

28 September 2026oldest read · due 12 Nov

Independent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works

Set your country and amount to see your costs ·

6 providers match your requirements

Out of 6 ranked providers. 0 excluded.

What this ranks

Ranked here: intent networks where solvers bid to fill your order, compared on whether you can see the bids, who may solve, whether the network fee is disclosed and what happens when nobody fills.Not ranked here: networks with no live solver auction to score, including ones not yet on mainnet, and solver networks that only supply solving capacity inside another protocol.6 of the 11 assessed are ranked; 5 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works

CoW Protocol

How CoW Protocol was chosen

Leads this ranking on Bid set visibility

Batch auction

81 out of 100published score, #1 of all 6 worldwide

Evidence

High

4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.

Bid set visibilityNetwork fee disclosure

Why it leads

CoW Protocol is 13 points ahead of UniswapX, mainly because it scores higher on its bid visibility and its network fee disclosure.
Best in this ranking on bid visibility (10/10; next 6/10)
Ahead of UniswapX on bid visibility (+12.7 points) and network fee disclosure (+2.7 points)

Tradeoff

Solver admission: 2 points below the best in this ranking

Sort by

#ProviderPriceCompare

Off-chain request-for-quote awards a short...

68 out of 100

Message bus

65 out of 100

Cross-chain order book

64 out of 100

Signed request filled immediately by a solver...

47 out of 100

Descending-price auction

45 out of 100

Not confirmed (1) — not ranked until its source is read again; listed, not ruled out.

Across Protocol · Re-read pending: Across says across.to was taken over through its registrar on 10 November 2026; its post-mortem is not out yet.

Compare providers (0)

See key differences in features, fees, security and more.

Network fee disclosure

22% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Network fee disclosure (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
CoW Protocol	8	81
NEAR Intents	8	65
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)	8	64
Relay Protocol	8	47
UniswapX	6	68
1inch Fusion	2	45

Bid visibility

Bid set visibility

34% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Bid visibility (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
CoW Protocol	10	81
NEAR Intents	6	65
UniswapX	4	68
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)	3	64
1inch Fusion	2	45
Relay Protocol	0	47

Solver admission

20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Solver admission (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)	9	64
UniswapX	8	68
CoW Protocol	7	81
NEAR Intents	2	65
Relay Protocol	2	47
1inch Fusion	2	45

Nofill fallback

Fallback when nobody fills

24% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Nofill fallback (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
UniswapX	8	68
CoW Protocol	7	81
NEAR Intents	6	65
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)	4	64
1inch Fusion	4	45
Relay Protocol	3	47

All 4 published criteria

Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.

	Provider					ChainChoice Score
1	CoW Protocol	10	7	8	7	81
2	UniswapX	4	8	6	8	68
3	NEAR Intents	6	2	8	6	65
4	deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)	3	9	8	4	64
5	Relay Protocol	0	2	8	3	47
6	1inch Fusion	2	2	2	4	45

How this ranking works

How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which intent networks were assessed and left out.

FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read

See the arithmetic

Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file

Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4

Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap out of 10Pts

Bid set visibility8.2·1010.9

Solver admission4.8−274.5

Network fee disclosure5.3·85.6

Fallback when nobody fills5.8−175.4

Σ methodology points26.4/32

Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted

Why it ranks first

Why CoW Protocol leads this category right now

Batch auction in which authorised solvers submit competing settlements and the highest-scoring solution executes the batch. Strongest on bid set visibility (10/10): CoW Protocol's public solver-competition endpoint returns every solution submitted to an auction: auction 13537951 lists 14 solutions from 13 solver addresses, each with its score, ranking, winner flag and filtered-out status, and the reference score the winner is paid against. Weakest on solver admission (7/10): Only addresses on CoW's on-chain solver allowlist can settle, and anyone can check an address against it. The default route onto the list, through the CoW DAO bonding pool, requires KYC with company incorporation details and shareholder passports; the alternative is a solver's own bonding pool, which CoW whitelists. Published price: docs.cow.fi/governance/fees, fetched 2026-09-28, sets the protocol's take as a surplus component and a volume component: "50% of surplus on out-of-market limit orders, capped at 0.98% of the total volume of the order" and "50% of positive quote improvement on…

Best for

Bid set visibility — 10/10

Main tradeoff

The transparency is real but the competition behind it is uneven. Across auction ids 13537943 to 13537952 on 2026-08-08, the six that resolved returned 2, 15, 17, 13, 14 and 14 solutions. Auction 13537943 drew two bids from two distinct solvers. A buyer landing in a thin auction still gets a published, auditable record; what the record shows is that on that batch the network was a duopoly. Separately, the rewards page (docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/rewards) sets the solver reward on "Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum, and Base chain" at a 50% fraction of the protocol fee with a downside cap of "0.010 ETH", so solver participation is economically rationed and cannot be assumed constant across pairs.

Verify before signup

docs.cow.fi/governance/fees, fetched 28 September 2026, sets the protocol's take as a surplus component and a volume component: "50% of surplus on out-of-market limit orders, capped at 0.98% of the total volume of the order" and "50% of positive quote improvement on market orders (aka swaps), capped at 0.98% of the total volume of the order", plus a tiered volume fee of "2 basis points (bps)" on Standard Assets and "0.3 basis points (bps)" on "Correlated Assets (Stables/RWAs)", with the arithmetic spelled out as "Standard : Volume * 0.0002" and "Correlated: Volume * 0.00003". The page adds that "All protocol fees are charged in the surplus token, i.e. in the buy token for sell orders and the sell token for buy orders." and, in a section added since 8 August 2026, that "The computed fees of every trade, including partner fees, are exposed in the executedProtocolFees field of the trades API endpoint", with a worked example of a 1 ETH market order carrying a partner fee of 1% on top of the protocol fees.

Recommendation summary

What should decide this category

Can you see the bids that lost, or only the one that won?

Who is allowed to fill your order, and did anyone have to be approved to do it?

If no solver fills, what happens to your order, and what have you paid by then?

Quick picks

Strong options in this category

Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.

Best overall

CoW Protocol

Batch auction in which authorised solvers submit competing settlements and the highest-scoring solution executes the batch.

Best for: Bid set visibility — 10/10

Bid set visibility · weight 34%10/10Solver admission · weight 20%7/10Network fee disclosure · weight 22%8/10Fallback when nobody fills · weight 24%7/10

Quick pick

UniswapX

Off-chain request-for-quote awards a short exclusivity window to the best quoter, then decays into an open Dutch auction anyone may fill.

Off-chain request-for-quote awards a short exclusivity window to the best quoter, then decays into an open Dutch auction anyone may fill. Strongest on solver admission (8/10): A quoter vetted by Uniswap Labs wins a short exclusive window, about 24 seconds (2 blocks) on Ethereum. After it, or if that quoter fades, the order decays in a Dutch auction that anyone may fill. Uniswap's documentation states that quoters are permissioned and fillers are permissionless. Weakest on bid set visibility (4/10): The best hard quote wins exclusivity, but the ranking is never shown. An order record names only the winning exclusive filler, a quote id and the decay times; no field carries a competing quote, a losing quoter or the number of quoters asked. Uniswap describes the quoter set as permissioned and known to Labs. Published price: blog.uniswap.org/unification, fetched 2026-09-28: "Labs' fees on the interface, wallet, and API will be set to zero." The same page names the product as a future fee target: "From there, fees can be turned on for L2s, other L1s, v4, UniswapX, PFDA, and…

Best for: Solver admission — 8/10

Bid set visibility · weight 34%4/10Solver admission · weight 20%8/10Network fee disclosure · weight 22%6/10Fallback when nobody fills · weight 24%8/10

Quick pick

NEAR Intents

Message bus, reachable only with a Partner Portal token, forwards a signed request to all solvers and returns competing quotes to the requester, who picks one by hash.

Message bus, reachable only with a Partner Portal token, forwards a signed request to all solvers and returns competing quotes to the requester, who picks one by hash. Strongest on network fee disclosure (8/10): NEAR Intents publishes its protocol fee as 0.0001% (1 pip), and the intents.near contract returns the same value. The 1Click API adds 0.20% with an API key (0.01% on stablecoin and same-asset routes) or an extra 0.25% without one; those rates appear only in the documentation and carry no cap. Weakest on solver admission (2/10): NEAR Intents' Solver Terms of Use make KYC on principals and KYB on the solver conditions of any quoting, filling or settlement, with access issued through the Partner Portal and revocable at the operator's discretion. No list of admitted solvers is published. Published price: docs.near-intents.org/resources/fees, fetched 2026-09-28: the protocol fee is "0.0001% (1 pip) per transaction", "Collected on-chain by the intents.near smart contract" and "Applies to every transfer, swap, or transaction".

Best for: Network fee disclosure — 8/10

Bid set visibility · weight 34%6/10Solver admission · weight 20%2/10Network fee disclosure · weight 22%8/10Fallback when nobody fills · weight 24%6/10

Quick pick

deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)

Cross-chain order book where the maker fixes the take amount at creation and the first solver to fulfil on the destination chain wins the order.

Cross-chain order book where the maker fixes the take amount at creation and the first solver to fulfil on the destination chain wins the order. Strongest on solver admission (9/10): Any on-chain address with liquidity on the destination chain may fulfil a DLN order by calling the DlnDestination contract, and the first to mark it fulfilled wins the unlock. The documentation names no allowlist, identity check or nomination; a solver must still front its own destination-chain funds. Weakest on bid set visibility (3/10): DLN has no bidding step: the maker fixes the price when creating the order and the first solver to fulfil it wins. The public order feed records each order's amounts, fees and state but carries no bid, quote or losing solver. Published price: docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fees-supported-chains.md, fetched 2026-09-28: "A variable fee of 4bps is paid in the input token", plus a flat fee "paid in the native gas token of the chain where the order is created", tabulated per chain: 0.001 ETH on…

Best for: Solver admission — 9/10

Bid set visibility · weight 34%3/10Solver admission · weight 20%9/10Network fee disclosure · weight 22%8/10Fallback when nobody fills · weight 24%4/10

Considered and not ranked

5 products we looked at and left out

A shortlist is only honest if it says who it turned away. Each of these was assessed against the same published criteria as the ranked table and excluded for a stated reason — not overlooked.

We assessed 11 products here and rank 6 — 55% of what we looked at. That share is of the products we assessed, not of the category: how many exist is not something we can count, so we do not claim a number for it.

Across Protocol· Re-read pendingAnomaEssentialKhalaniBungee / SOCKET Protocol· Different job

What this ranking does not assess

Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.

These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.

How this ranking is built

Reviewed on bid set visibility, solver admission, network fee disclosure, and fallback when nobody fills.

Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work

Reviewed 28 September 2026Next review by 12 November 2026Published 11 August 2026Methodology v2026.11.1

How this page is reviewed

Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Direct answer

What is the best intent network in 2026?

CoW Protocol ranks #1 overall for intent networks on ChainChoice. Batch auction in which authorised solvers submit competing settlements and the highest-scoring solution executes the batch. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.

How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores

Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
Scored by Bid set visibility · 34% (CoW Protocol 10/10, UniswapX 4/10, NEAR Intents 6/10)
Scored by Solver admission · 20% (CoW Protocol 7/10, UniswapX 8/10, NEAR Intents 2/10)
Scored by Fallback when nobody fills · 24% (CoW Protocol 7/10, UniswapX 8/10, NEAR Intents 6/10)

Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.

Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Network fee disclosure (22%).

FAQs

4 questions readers ask before choosing intent networks.

Frequently asked

Questions people ask before choosing intents

Can I see the competition for my order?

At one venue, yes, in full. Querying ten consecutive auction ids on 2026-08-08 returned solution counts of 2, 15, 17, 13, 14 and 14 for the six that resolved, with four returning HTTP 404 and the body "solver competition not found". That transparency cuts both ways and is more useful for it: one of those auctions drew two solutions from two distinct solvers. Publishing the bid set did not make the auction deep — it made the shallowness legible, and at the six opaque venues an auction with two participants and one with seventeen are indistinguishable from outside. Everywhere else you get the winner: an opaque quote id and the winning filler, a nominated relayer emitted in a deposit event, or an order feed carrying no losing bids at all.

What does the network actually take?

Normalised to a $10,000 swap on one date, and counting only the cut each network publishes for itself, the spread is three orders of magnitude — and the venue that discloses the most charges more than one that discloses nothing. UniswapX takes $0.00, with Labs fees set to zero; NEAR Intents takes $0.01 through an API key holder but $20.01 for a buyer arriving through its own front end, because a 0.2% charge sits on top; CoW Protocol takes $0.30 on correlated assets or $2.00 standard. deBridge documents a 4 bps headline and never numbers the charge that actually bites a small order — its fee page describes only "a fixed amount in the source-chain native token paid to deBridge validators", and calling the contract settles it at globalFixedNativeFee() = 1000000000000000 wei, a flat 0.001 ETH. One caveat on the zero: the same proposal that sets those fees to zero also lists UniswapX among the products where "fees can be turned on". A buyer comparing on today's rate is comparing a governance decision, not a schedule.

Does a clear fee page mean good execution?

No, and this category contains the cleanest possible demonstration. Relay publishes the most precise schedule here — 0.00%, 0.01%, 0.06% and 0.15% by transaction class, plus a flat charge described as "always included", broken out as discrete API fields — while its own protocol overview states that "There is no orderflow auction or solver competition window. Solvers receive orders and fill immediately." Fee transparency and execution competition are orthogonal properties, and a buyer who reads the first as evidence of the second has drawn the wrong conclusion from a genuinely good disclosure. That is why they are scored as two separate criteria rather than rolled into one.

Who is allowed to fill my order?

It varies from anyone to an approved list, and the venue that restricts the most publishes the least. 1inch Fusion requires an operator-approved KYC/KYB process before anyone may fill — its resolver documentation describes access being granted when "Your Access NFT(s) will be minted, granting access to Order fulfillment" — and publishes no per-order resolver record, no roster and no Fusion fee number. Three admission rules could not be established at all and are scored at the midpoint rather than guessed: whether registering as a solver on the NEAR Intents message bus requires approval, a stake or an identity check, and whether Relay admits solvers permissionlessly. Both sets of pages were re-read and neither states a rule. Separately worth knowing that deployment is not liquidity: one network is listed on a chain whose newest filled order was created in October 2023, and three of its listed chains have never filled one.

Free advisorNo signup needed

Still unsure? Get your best intents pick

Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.

No signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Best picks

Best intent networks in 2026

Weighted on whether you can see the bids you did not win (34), what happens when nobody fills (24), what the network takes and says it takes (22), and who is allowed to fill at all (20). Bid visibility leads because it is the only thing that makes the rest checkable: when the competition is published you can tell whether an auction had fifteen participants or two, and at an opaque venue those two cases look identical from the outside. Fee disclosure is scored separately from fee level, and separately again from execution quality — the venue with the most precise published fee schedule in this pool also states that it runs no auction at all.

Best overall

CoW Protocol

Batch auction in which authorised solvers submit competing settlements and the highest-scoring solution executes the batch.

Data checked Sep 2026

Best for: Bid set visibility — 10/10

Browse this network

Keep exploring intent networks

The same published ranking, read for your country, side by side, or one provider at a time.

Every ranked provider, its full verdict

Best intent networks by country

How this category is defined

Intent Networks: overview, criteria and weights

Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier Founder

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research

Your setup

6 providers match your requirements

Why it leads

Tradeoff

Compare providers (0)