Options Vaults
Options Vaults evaluated across verifiable per-vault track record, published cost to the depositor, documented loss profile in a drawdown, and audit and incident record.
8providers tracked
8ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
27 September 2026oldest read · due 11 NovIndependent. 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 ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which options vaults serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
8 providers match your requirements
Out of 8 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: options vaults, which take a deposit, sell options with it and quote the depositor an APY.Not ranked here: vaults whose quoted APY does not come from selling options.8 of the 8 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
SO
SOFA.org (Earn and Surge)
How SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) was chosen
Leads this ranking on Audit and incident recordRFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch.
79 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 8 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Published cost to the depositorDocumented loss profile in a drawdownAudit and incident record
Why it leads
- SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) scores higher than everything else in this ranking on its security and operating record.
- Best in this ranking on security and operating record (8/10; next 6/10)
- Tied with Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults on the published total; the tie-break orders them
Tradeoff
Verifiable track record: 6 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Tied for #1 · ordered by unrounded weighted total (44.1 against 44.05)
Covered-call, call-selling and put-selling...
79 / 100 out of 100
3
DE
Tokenised covered-call and covered-call-spread...
78 / 100 out of 100
4
Covered-call and cash-secured-put positions...
72 / 100 out of 100
5
An Arbitrum options exchange
57 / 100 out of 100
6
An ETH covered-call vault still running on...
53 / 100 out of 100
7
Vaults selling out-of-the-money European...
50 / 100 out of 100
8
The rebranded Dopex option-selling vaults
≤41 / 100 out of 100
Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) has shut down (The rebranded Dopex option-selling vaults, still on-chain but no longer present in the protocol's current product documentation.).
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Depositor cost disclosure
Published cost to the depositor
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 | Depositor cost disclosure (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) | 9 | 79 |
| Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults | 9 | 79 |
| Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium) | 5 | 72 |
| Premia (Premia Blue / Vault Depot) | 4 | 57 |
| Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) | 2 | 78 |
| Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults | 2 | 50 |
| Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) | 1 | 41 |
| 3Jane Options V1 (ETH-X-C covered call vault) | 0 | 53 |
Verifiable track record
Verifiable per-vault track record
32% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Verifiable track record (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) | 9 | 78 |
| Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults | 5 | 79 |
| 3Jane Options V1 (ETH-X-C covered call vault) | 5 | 53 |
| SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) | 3 | 79 |
| Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium) | 3 | 72 |
| Premia (Premia Blue / Vault Depot) | 1 | 57 |
| Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults | 1 | 50 |
| Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) | 1 | 41 |
Security and operating record
Audit and incident record
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 | Security and operating record (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) | 8 | 79 |
| Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) | 6 | 78 |
| Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium) | 6 | 72 |
| Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults | 5 | 79 |
| Premia (Premia Blue / Vault Depot) | 5 | 57 |
| 3Jane Options V1 (ETH-X-C covered call vault) | 3 | 53 |
| Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) | 2 | 41 |
| Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults | 1 | 50 |
Documented drawdown risk
Documented loss profile in a drawdown
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 | Documented drawdown risk (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium) | 9 | 72 |
| SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) | 8 | 79 |
| Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults | 8 | 79 |
| Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) | 8 | 78 |
| Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults | 4 | 50 |
| Premia (Premia Blue / Vault Depot) | 3 | 57 |
| 3Jane Options V1 (ETH-X-C covered call vault) | 1 | 53 |
| Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) | 1 | 41 |
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 | SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) | 3 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 79 |
| 2 | Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults | 5 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 79 |
| 3 | Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) | 9 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 78 |
| 4 | Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium) | 3 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 72 |
| 5 | Premia (Premia Blue / Vault Depot) | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 57 |
| 6 | 3Jane Options V1 (ETH-X-C covered call vault) | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 53 |
| 7 | Thetanuts Finance Basic Vaults | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 50 |
| 8 | Stryke SSOV (formerly Dopex Single Staking Options Vaults) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 41 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which options vaults were assessed and left out.
One point from changingSOFA.org (Earn and Surge) and Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults are tied on the published score
A one-point change on one criterion puts Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults first, so read both.
See the arithmetic
Move verifiable per-vault track record — the heaviest criterion that changes it, weighted 32 — by a single point and Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults takes first place. Both are worth reading. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
Verifiable per-vault track record7.7−633.1
Published cost to the depositor5.8·96.9
Documented loss profile in a drawdown5.3−185.6
Audit and incident record5.3·85.6
Σ methodology points21.2/32
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 SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) leads this category right now
RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch. Strongest on published cost to the depositor (9/10): SOFA takes 15% of the depositor's option premium as a base fee and a further 5% of the gross upside payout on a winning outcome. Both rates appear inside the published payoff equations. The fee page carries no date. Weakest on verifiable per-vault track record (3/10): SOFA publishes payoff equations that let a depositor recompute a single trade, but no per-vault share price and no realised-return series. Prices come by request-for-quote from market makers rather than fixed epochs, and DefiLlama's yield index has no SOFA pool. Published price: "SOFA will collect 15% of the user's option premium as a base trading fee.
Best for
Published cost to the depositor — 9/10
Main tradeoff
The 5% settlement fee is charged on the gross upside payout, so the winning scenario is the expensive one - the fee stack reaches 20% precisely when the structure pays. And the FAQ's "strong capital protection" language should not be read literally: SOFA is the settlement layer, the market maker sets the price, and the user carries the short-option outcome.
Verify before signup
"SOFA will collect 15% of the user's option premium as a base trading fee. Furthermore, in the event of a 'winning' payout occurring for the user, a further 5% settlement fee will be charged against the total Gross Upside Payout." (Protocol Fees page, docs.sofa.org/technical-design/fees.html, fetched 27 September 2026; wording unchanged since 6 August 2026, preceded in the source by a money-bag emoji). The same page carries both fees in the payoff formulas. If knocked out: "Payoff_{inUSDT} = Notional_{Deposit} + AAVEInterest_{Actual} - Premium * (1 + 0.15)". If not knocked out: "Payoff_{inUSDT} = Notional_{Deposit} + AAVEInterest_{Actual} + Premium * (1 - 0.15 - 0.05) + MM'sCollateral * (1 - 0.05)". The 5% is charged on the gross upside, so the fee stack reaches 20% of premium plus 5% of the market maker's collateral in exactly the scenario where the structure pays.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
Does this vault still run, and when did the protocol last ship one?
Can you verify the per-vault return anywhere other than the vendor's own dashboard?
What does the protocol itself document that the strategy loses when the market moves against it?
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
SO
SOFA.org (Earn and Surge)
RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch.
RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch. Strongest on published cost to the depositor (9/10): SOFA takes 15% of the depositor's option premium as a base fee and a further 5% of the gross upside payout on a winning outcome. Both rates appear inside the published payoff equations. The fee page carries no date. Weakest on verifiable per-vault track record (3/10): SOFA publishes payoff equations that let a depositor recompute a single trade, but no per-vault share price and no realised-return series. Prices come by request-for-quote from market makers rather than fixed epochs, and DefiLlama's yield index has no SOFA pool. Published price: "SOFA will collect 15% of the user's option premium as a base trading fee.
Best for: Published cost to the depositor — 9/10
Verifiable per-vault track record · weight 32%3/10Published cost to the depositor · weight 24%9/10Documented loss profile in a drawdown · weight 22%8/10Audit and incident record · weight 22%8/10
Quick pick
Tied for #1 · ordered by unrounded weighted total (44.1 against 44.05)
Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults
Covered-call, call-selling and put-selling vaults on Sui that auction each epoch's options to whitelisted bidders.
Covered-call, call-selling and put-selling vaults on Sui that auction each epoch's options to whitelisted bidders. Strongest on published cost to the depositor (9/10): Typus's fee page, updated 10 February 2026, lists 0.0% deposit, withdrawal and claim fees for its option vaults and a 10-15% fee on harvested rewards charged to the depositor, with the 15% tier named for aggressive hourly SUI vaults and memecoin vaults. Weakest on verifiable per-vault track record (5/10): Typus links vault history to an operator-maintained Google Sheet and a third-party Sentio dashboard. No per-vault share price is published at a machine-readable endpoint, and DefiLlama's yield index carries no Typus pool. Published price: From the DeFi Options Vaults section of the Fees page (docs.typus.finance/fees), fetched 2026-09-27; the page footer still reads "Updated 10 Feb 2026".
Best for: Published cost to the depositor — 9/10
Verifiable per-vault track record · weight 32%5/10Published cost to the depositor · weight 24%9/10Documented loss profile in a drawdown · weight 22%8/10Audit and incident record · weight 22%5/10
Quick pick
DE
Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra)
Tokenised covered-call and covered-call-spread vaults on an on-chain options exchange, with each vault's share price served from a public API.
Tokenised covered-call and covered-call-spread vaults on an on-chain options exchange, with each vault's share price served from a public API. Strongest on verifiable per-vault track record (9/10): Derive publishes a timestamped share price (base_value) for each of its ten vaults at a public, unauthenticated API endpoint. Eight carry marks from 27 September 2026, and both covered-call-spread vaults sit below 1.0. Two vaults, rsETH and rswETH Covered Call, have not re-marked since 24 July 2026. Weakest on published cost to the depositor (2/10): Derive publishes no vault fee rates. Its Terms of Use, updated 23 September 2026, say a vault may charge management, performance, withdrawal and other fees and leave the rates to vault terms or the vault operator. Its fee article covers exchange trading, liquidation and borrow fees only. Published price: No depositor-facing vault fee is published; the absence was re-tested on 2026-09-27, not assumed.
Best for: Verifiable per-vault track record — 9/10
Verifiable per-vault track record · weight 32%9/10Published cost to the depositor · weight 24%2/10Documented loss profile in a drawdown · weight 22%8/10Audit and incident record · weight 22%6/10
Quick pick
Rysk (Rysk V12 and Rysk Premium)
Covered-call and cash-secured-put positions priced through an RFQ network, plus curator-run pooled vaults on HyperEVM.
Covered-call and cash-secured-put positions priced through an RFQ network, plus curator-run pooled vaults on HyperEVM. Strongest on documented loss profile in a drawdown (9/10): Rysk's Premium documentation states that LPs could lose a significant portion of deposited capital if written options expire deep in the money, works through in-the-money settlement examples, and explains that withdrawals stay escrowed while capital is deployed and are paid at the first epoch with enough liquidity. Weakest on verifiable per-vault track record (3/10): Rysk's pooled Premium NAV is calculated off-chain from a committee of option desks and submitted by the Governor at each epoch, and the retail headline APR is the annualised upfront premium. No independent per-vault return series is published. Published price: Rysk Premium Explainer, section 8 Fees (docs.rysk.finance/rysk-premium/rysk-premium-explainer.md), fetched 2026-09-27: "The pool has two fee tiers, both expressed in basis points (bps):".
Best for: Documented loss profile in a drawdown — 9/10
Verifiable per-vault track record · weight 32%3/10Published cost to the depositor · weight 24%5/10Documented loss profile in a drawdown · weight 22%9/10Audit and incident record · weight 22%6/10
Considered and not ranked
None left out by name
We assessed 8 products here and rank all 8. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 27 September 2026.
What this ranking does not assess
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
- Oracle failure: a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.
- Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
- 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 whether the per-vault track record is verifiable, what the depositor actually pays, what the documentation says the strategy loses in a drawdown, and the audit and operating record.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
Reviewed Published Methodology v2026.11.1
Re-read due since
The published cadence is 45 days; this page's next read was due on 11 November 2026.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 options vault in 2026?
SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) ranks #1 overall for options vaults on ChainChoice. RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch. 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
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit and incident record · 22% (SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) 8/10, Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults 5/10, Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) 6/10)
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Verifiable per-vault track record · 32% (SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) 3/10, Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults 5/10, Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) 9/10)Scored by Documented loss profile in a drawdown · 22% (SOFA.org (Earn and Surge) 8/10, Typus Finance DeFi Options Vaults 8/10, Derive Vaults (Harvest and Safe Harvest, formerly Lyra) 8/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Oracle failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Published cost to the depositor (24%).
FAQs
3 questions readers ask before choosing options vaults.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing options vaults
Why is the advertised APY not the main criterion here?
Because it is a description of premium already collected, not a forecast, and the risk it omits is the entire product. Selling a covered call caps your upside at the strike while leaving your downside intact, so a vault can post an attractive annualised premium through a calm quarter and hand back more than that in a single move. That is why the heaviest weight here is on whether the per-vault record is verifiable at all, and the second on what the protocol documents about its own loss profile. An APY with no checkable series behind it is a claim, and this comparison treats it as one.
Can I check these returns independently?
Almost never, which is the most uncomfortable finding in the category. The neutral yield index that tracks 15,635 pools contains exactly one options vault from this pool — the other seven protocols have zero indexed pools, verified by enumerating the index rather than searching it. So for most of these, the only record of performance is the vendor's own dashboard. One protocol does publish an auditable per-vault share price through a public endpoint, and it is scored highest on track record precisely because you can check it, even though what you find there is not flattering.
How many of these protocols are actually still operating?
Fewer than the search results suggest. Five of the seven names a buyer would naturally look for have stopped running options vaults — one after its vaults were exploited, with the operator stating that all of them would be stopped and decommissioned immediately. Products that stop are listed under discontinued here with what is actually published about them, rather than ranked, because a vault you cannot deposit into is not a choice. Check the operating record before the yield: in this category the base rate of disappearance is higher than the spread between the yields.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best options vaults 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 signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best options vaults in 2026
Start by asking whether the vault still exists, because in this category that is a real question — five of the seven protocols a buyer would search for no longer run an options vault at all. Then ignore the advertised APY, which is a backward-looking premium figure that says nothing about the strategy's worst outcome: a covered call caps your upside and keeps your downside, and that only shows up in a drawdown. What actually separates these is whether you can check the returns yourself. The neutral yield index that tracks more than fifteen thousand pools contains exactly one vault from this pool, so for the rest there is no independent series to compare against a claim — and the one protocol that does publish an auditable per-vault share price is the one whose numbers look worst.
Best overall
SO
SOFA.org (Earn and Surge)
RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch.
Data checked Sep 2026
RFQ-priced structured products settled into ERC-1155 vaults, where the user picks the strike and tenor instead of joining an epoch. Strongest on published cost to the depositor (9/10): SOFA takes 15% of the depositor's option premium as a base fee and a further 5% of the gross upside payout on a winning outcome. Both rates appear inside the published payoff equations. The fee page carries no date. Weakest on verifiable per-vault track record (3/10): SOFA publishes payoff equations that let a depositor recompute a single trade, but no per-vault share price and no realised-return series. Prices come by request-for-quote from market makers rather than fixed epochs, and DefiLlama's yield index has no SOFA pool. Published price: "SOFA will collect 15% of the user's option premium as a base trading fee.
Best for: Published cost to the depositor — 9/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research