Skip to main content

Best yield aggregators in 2026

Yield Aggregators evaluated across inherited dependency surface, loss record, own code and inherited, total take-rate and whether it is published, and strategy change control.

Convex Finance
#1 of 7 · published ranking
Convex Finance
81ChainChoice Score
Why it leads
Best in the pool on dependency surface and inherited exploit record
Cost
Not priced · No published rate on this basis
7 compared Ranking-blind · 392 modules checked 2026-09-18Scored under methodology v2026.09.15 (2026-09-16)
7yield aggregators · sorted by chainchoice score
ranked before any payout data is seen
#1 overallcomputed before any payout data is seenOverall
Convex Finance
Convex Finance
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges
Leads the pool on Inherited dependency surface
81ChainChoice Score · first of 7
Catalog strengths
Inherited dependency surfaceTotal take-rate and whether it is publishedLoss record own and inherited
Why it leads
  • Best in the pool on dependency surface and inherited exploit record
  • 24 points ahead of Concentrator (AladdinDAO): +9.4 pts dependency surface, +5.6 pts inherited exploit record
  • Provider states broad availability
Evidence
4/4
criteria scored · no receipt file
Margin
+24
over Concentrator (AladdinDAO), ranked #02
Rank stability
Firm
#1 holds when every published criterion is moved ±1
Jurisdiction
Global
no restricted market on record
Score breakdowntick = pool best
Dependency surface9/10
Inherited exploit record8/10
Fee stack transparency9/10
Strategy change control6/10
Ranking-blind · a guided run tailors this to your size, custody & jurisdiction
#ProviderPerformance feeScoreEvidenceKey strengths
2−24
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)
Performance fee
—
no receipt file
Total take-rate and whether it is publishedLoss record own and inherited
Joint #2 · ordered by name, A to Z
3=
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)
Performance fee
20%
no receipt file
Total take-rate and whether it is publishedInherited dependency surface
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.50 against 38.30)
4=
CIAN Yield Layer
CIAN Yield Layer
Performance fee
8%
no receipt file
Total take-rate and whether it is publishedLoss record own and inherited
5−1
Stake DAO
Stake DAO
Performance fee
—
no receipt file
Strategy change controlInherited dependency surface
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.00 against 37.80)
6=
Yearn Finance
Yearn Finance
Performance fee
—
no receipt file
Strategy change controlInherited dependency surface
7−4
Beefy
Performance fee
9.5%
no receipt file
Total take-rate and whether it is publishedLoss record own and inherited
Ranking-blind — order computed before any payout data is joined
Below the table

How this ranking works

Everything the table draws on continues here: how firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and the full guide to choosing.

Direct answer

What is the best yield aggregators in 2026?

Convex Finance ranks #1 overall for yield aggregators on ChainChoice. Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges. 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; full reasoning and the audit receipt are below.

Best picks

Best yield aggregators in 2026

The best aggregator depends on how many protocols you are willing to be exposed to, because an aggregator is a claim on everything its strategies route into — you hold its risk plus theirs. Losses count whether the bug was in its own code or in something it integrated, since the depositor loses either way. And retirement rate says more about strategy durability than any APY: one provider here has retired 3,471 of the 4,028 vaults it ever launched.
Best overall
Convex Finance
Convex Finance
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges
Data checked Sep 2026
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges. Strongest on inherited dependency surface (9/10): A Curve LP deposit is staked into its own Curve gauge. Convex names exactly two inherited platforms — "users are also beholden to any risks that pertain to the Curve.fi platform and Frax Finance platform, as Convex integrates directly with them" — and states "Convex is price agnostic and thus does not require oracles." Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): Routing is fixed per Curve pool, the 3-of-5 multisig "does NOT have direct access to user deposits" and shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Against that, no timelock stands on any admin action by design, the only timelock (30 days) guards a force-shutdown path, and the multisig can add pools and move fees within ranges instantly. Published price: Curve LP deposits: 17% total fee on CRV revenue — 10% to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), 4.5% to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), 2% to treasury (paid as CRV), 0.5% to the harvest caller (paid as CRV).
Best for: Inherited dependency surface — 9/10
Why this score4 published criteria · leads every one
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10Pts
Inherited dependency surface7.2·98.6
Loss record own and inherited7.2·87.7
Total take-rate and whether it is published4.8·95.8
Strategy change control4.8·63.8
Σ methodology points25.9/32

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 Convex Finance leads this category right now
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges. Strongest on inherited dependency surface (9/10): A Curve LP deposit is staked into its own Curve gauge. Convex names exactly two inherited platforms — "users are also beholden to any risks that pertain to the Curve.fi platform and Frax Finance platform, as Convex integrates directly with them" — and states "Convex is price agnostic and thus does not require oracles." Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): Routing is fixed per Curve pool, the 3-of-5 multisig "does NOT have direct access to user deposits" and shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Against that, no timelock stands on any admin action by design, the only timelock (30 days) guards a force-shutdown path, and the multisig can add pools and move fees within ranges instantly. Published price: Curve LP deposits: 17% total fee on CRV revenue — 10% to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), 4.5% to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), 2% to treasury (paid as CRV), 0.5% to the harvest caller (paid as CRV).
Best for
Inherited dependency surface — 9/10
Main tradeoff
TVL was $455.2M on 5 Aug 2026 against a peak of $21.17B on 5 Jan 2022 — a 97.9% drawdown. You are buying concentrated, undiversified exposure to Curve's continued existence, from a protocol whose own docs still describe an integration (Prisma) that died two years ago.
Verify before signup
Curve LP deposits: 17% total fee on CRV revenue — 10% to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), 4.5% to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), 2% to treasury (paid as CRV), 0.5% to the harvest caller (paid as CRV). "Fees are taken only from CRV revenue; no fees are taken from tokens from incentivized Curve pools, nor from veCRV admin fees". The multisig can move each share only within hard-coded ranges (10-15%, 3-6%, 0-2%, 0.1-1.0%) under "an absolute fee ceiling of 20%". Convex's LP page states zero deposit and withdraw fees. Frax LPs pay 20% of FXS revenue; FXN-boosted LPs pay 17%.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
How many underlying protocols are you willing to inherit risk from?
Has this aggregator ever lost funds — including through a protocol it merely integrated?
How quickly can the strategy change under you, and who authorises 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
Convex Finance
Convex Finance
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges. Strongest on inherited dependency surface (9/10): A Curve LP deposit is staked into its own Curve gauge. Convex names exactly two inherited platforms — "users are also beholden to any risks that pertain to the Curve.fi platform and Frax Finance platform, as Convex integrates directly with them" — and states "Convex is price agnostic and thus does not require oracles." Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): Routing is fixed per Curve pool, the 3-of-5 multisig "does NOT have direct access to user deposits" and shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Against that, no timelock stands on any admin action by design, the only timelock (30 days) guards a force-shutdown path, and the multisig can add pools and move fees within ranges instantly. Published price: Curve LP deposits: 17% total fee on CRV revenue — 10% to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), 4.5% to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), 2% to treasury (paid as CRV), 0.5% to the harvest caller (paid as CRV).
Best for: Inherited dependency surface — 9/10
Inherited dependency surface · 30%
9/10
Loss record own and inherited · 30%
8/10
Total take-rate and whether it is published · 20%
9/10
Strategy change control · 20%
6/10
Quick pick
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)
Concentrator (AladdinDAO)
Compounds Convex rewards into aCRV and aFXS; sits on top of Convex
Compounds Convex rewards into aCRV and aFXS; sits on top of Convex. Strongest on total take-rate and whether it is published (6/10): Per-vault fee tables are public without a wallet: 10% treasury plus 2% harvest on the aCVX, abcCVX, aFXS and aCRV compounders, while the asdCRV compounder charges 0.50% harvest and 10.00% treasury plus a 15% boost fee the headline 12% does not cover. The docs do not show the fees charged underneath by Convex or Stake DAO. Weakest on strategy change control (2/10): Concentrator's ProxyAdmin and its aCRV, asdCRV and IFO vaults are owned directly by the Concentrator Treasury Safe (6 of 9 on-chain, no modules or guard) with no timelock contract in between. None of the AladdinDAO docs pages fetched mentions a timelock or a strategy-approval process, so upgrades and strategy changes can take effect in a single multisig transaction. Published price: "Concentrator takes a 10% treasury fee and a 2% harvest fee on yields. The fees were collected during the harvest process and distributed to the Treasury and Keeper respectively."
Best for: Total take-rate and whether it is published — 6/10
Inherited dependency surface · 30%
4/10
Loss record own and inherited · 30%
5/10
Total take-rate and whether it is published · 20%
6/10
Strategy change control · 20%
2/10
Quick pick
Joint #2 · ordered by name, A to Z
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)
Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM)
Rebasing yield tokens routing into Morpho, Curve and beacon-chain validators
Rebasing yield tokens routing into Morpho, Curve and beacon-chain validators. Strongest on total take-rate and whether it is published (7/10): One flat 20% performance fee is stated on a public Performance Fees page, "every APY figure Origin publishes is already net of fees", and the scoping on the WETH, USDe and USDC ARM Vaults is disclosed; the rate is a protocol parameter under xOGN governance. Weakest on loss record own and inherited (3/10): One large own-code loss, in Origin's words: "On November 17, 2020, malicious hackers attacked the OUSD smart contracts and were able to drain over $7M USD of user deposits (including $1M of deposits from Origin’s founders and company treasury)." Origin's plan provided compensation equal to 100% of the value deposited, but under it larger depositors were to receive 25% in OUSD and 75% in OGN locked for one year. Published price: "Origin charges a 20% performance fee on the yield its products generate. The fee applies to yield only, never principal, and every APY figure Origin publishes is already net of fees."
Best for: Total take-rate and whether it is published — 7/10
Inherited dependency surface · 30%
4/10
Loss record own and inherited · 30%
3/10
Total take-rate and whether it is published · 20%
7/10
Strategy change control · 20%
4/10
Quick pick
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.50 against 38.30)
CIAN Yield Layer
CIAN Yield Layer
Leveraged and aggregated LST/LRT vaults across Aave, Morpho, Pendle
Leveraged and aggregated LST/LRT vaults across Aave, Morpho, Pendle. Strongest on total take-rate and whether it is published (7/10): 8% performance and 0.02% exit are published with a worked example (10 ETH deposit, 10% APY, 0.08 ETH fee). But the same corpus exposes an API field `fee_info.management` described as "Anual management fee" — a per-vault annual charge the headline fee page implies is 0%. Weakest on strategy change control (2/10): CIAN's risk page says "withdrawal is going through batched execution with manual review", and the docs estimate withdrawn assets arrive in about 5 days. On-chain, the stETH Yield Layer vault and its upgrade ProxyAdmin are owned directly by a 3-of-4 Safe with no module or guard; the documented TimeLock has a 1-day delay but owns neither, so upgrades and ownership actions do not pass through it. Published price: "Performance Fee: CIAN charges a 8% performance fee on profits made. This fee is already calculated in the Net APY shown.
Best for: Total take-rate and whether it is published — 7/10
Inherited dependency surface · 30%
3/10
Loss record own and inherited · 30%
5/10
Total take-rate and whether it is published · 20%
7/10
Strategy change control · 20%
2/10
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing yield aggregators
What is the difference between staking and yield aggregator in crypto?
Staking secures a network and pays rewards for doing so. An aggregator routes your deposit through other protocols and compounds the result, which means the yield is real but so is every dependency it picked up on the way.
What is an inherited loss?
A loss that originated in a protocol the aggregator routed into rather than in its own contracts. It is scored the same as a first-party loss, because the depositor's outcome is identical and the routing decision was the aggregator's.
What matters most when choosing a yield aggregator?
The dependency surface and the loss record — 60% of the weight between them. Then the full take-rate, and how fast a strategy can change under you.
Why is a high retirement rate a warning?
Because it shows how many strategies stopped working. Vaults are retired when the underlying incentive dries up or the integration breaks, so a very high retirement rate tells you the shelf life of what you are about to deposit into.
Free advisorNo signup needed

Still unsure? Get your best yield aggregators 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

Browse this network
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on inherited dependency surface, loss record, own code and inherited, total take-rate and whether it is published, and strategy change control.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
ChainChoice
Compare onchain. A brighter future.
© 2026 ChainChoice. All rights reserved.
System statusFeeds last refreshed 9 days ago
Built from commit ba0993b · rankings.json sha256 e1eb24980abb
ChainChoice · The decision layer for crypto · Not financial adviceEducational analysis, not investment advice. Affiliate links may contribute to operations but never alter rankings.

ChainChoice provides informational content only. Nothing on this site constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Always do your own research and consult a qualified professional before making financial decisions.