Yield Aggregators
Yield Aggregators evaluated across the protocols each vault inherits, its loss record, audits of its own and inherited code, whether the total take-rate is published, and who can change a strategy.
7providers tracked
7ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
3 November 2026oldest read · due 18 DecIndependent. 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 yield aggregators 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
7 providers match your requirements
Out of 7 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: yield aggregators that auto-compound a reader's yield across protocols, inheriting the dependencies and loss record of the protocols they use.Not ranked here: yield products that do not auto-compound a reader's yield across protocols.7 of the 7 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
Convex Finance
How Convex Finance was chosen
Leads this ranking on Inherited dependency surfaceBoosted Curve LP staking
81 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 7 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Inherited dependency surfaceTotal take-rate and whether it is publishedLoss record own and inherited
Why it leads
- Convex Finance is 24 points ahead of Concentrator (AladdinDAO), mainly because it scores higher on its dependency surface and its inherited exploit record.
- Best in this ranking on dependency surface and inherited exploit record
- Ahead of Concentrator (AladdinDAO) on dependency surface (+9.4 points) and inherited exploit record (+5.6 points)
Performance fee
17%
Share
#ProviderPerformance feeCompare
2
Compounds Convex rewards into aCRV and aFXS
57 / 100 out of 100
3
Tied for #2 · ordered by name, A to Z
Rebasing yield tokens routing into Morpho
57 / 100 out of 100
20%
4
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.50 against 38.30)
Leveraged and aggregated LST/LRT vaults across...
57 / 100 out of 100
8%
5
Liquid lockers and auto-compounding strategies...
56 / 100 out of 100
6
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.00 against 37.80)
Multi-strategy ERC-4626 vaults
56 / 100 out of 100
10%
7
Multichain auto-compounding vaults across 30...
52 / 100 out of 100
9.5%
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Fee stack transparency
Total take-rate and whether it is published
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 | Fee stack transparency (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Convex Finance | 9 | 81 |
| Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) | 7 | 57 |
| CIAN Yield Layer | 7 | 57 |
| Concentrator (AladdinDAO) | 6 | 57 |
| Yearn Finance | 5 | 56 |
| Beefy | 5 | 52 |
| Stake DAO | 1 | 56 |
Inherited exploit record
Loss record own and inherited
30% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Inherited exploit record (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Convex Finance | 8 | 81 |
| Concentrator (AladdinDAO) | 5 | 57 |
| CIAN Yield Layer | 5 | 57 |
| Stake DAO | 4 | 56 |
| Beefy | 4 | 52 |
| Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) | 3 | 57 |
| Yearn Finance | 1 | 56 |
Strategy change control
Strategy change control
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 | Strategy change control (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Convex Finance | 6 | 81 |
| Stake DAO | 6 | 56 |
| Yearn Finance | 6 | 56 |
| Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) | 4 | 57 |
| Beefy | 3 | 52 |
| Concentrator (AladdinDAO) | 2 | 57 |
| CIAN Yield Layer | 2 | 57 |
Dependency surface
Inherited dependency surface
30% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Dependency surface (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Convex Finance | 9 | 81 |
| Stake DAO | 5 | 56 |
| Yearn Finance | 5 | 56 |
| Concentrator (AladdinDAO) | 4 | 57 |
| Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) | 4 | 57 |
| CIAN Yield Layer | 3 | 57 |
| Beefy | 2 | 52 |
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 | Convex Finance | 9 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 81 |
| 2 | Concentrator (AladdinDAO) | 4 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 57 |
| 3 | Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) | 4 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 57 |
| 4 | CIAN Yield Layer | 3 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 57 |
| 5 | Stake DAO | 5 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 56 |
| 6 | Yearn Finance | 5 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 56 |
| 7 | Beefy | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 52 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which yield aggregators 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 every one
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 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): Convex's risk page names exactly two inherited platforms, Curve and Frax. A Curve LP deposit is staked into that pool's own Curve gauge, with no leverage layer and no second aggregator underneath, and each pool's route is fixed. Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): A 3-of-5 multisig can add pools and move fees within hard-coded ranges with no timelock. Convex states that the multisig has no direct access to user deposits, and its shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Published price: Convex fees page (docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees, read 2026-11-03): "There is a 17% total fee on all CRV revenue generated by Curve LP's on the platform": "10%" to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), "4.5%" to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), "2%" to…
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
Convex fees page (docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees, read 3 November 2026): "There is a 17% total fee on all CRV revenue generated by Curve LP's on the platform": "10%" to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), "4.5%" to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), "2%" to treasury (paid as CRV) and "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". "Fees can be adjusted between hard-coded ranges" ("10-15%", "3-6%", "0-2%" and "0.1 - 1.0%") under "an absolute fee ceiling of 20%". Frax LPs: "There is a 20% total fee on all FXS revenue generated by Frax LP's on the platform"; FXN-boosted LPs: "There is a 17% total fee on all revenue generated by FXN boosted LP's on the platform". Convex's liquidity-provider page states "Zero deposit and withdraw fees".
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
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): Convex's risk page names exactly two inherited platforms, Curve and Frax. A Curve LP deposit is staked into that pool's own Curve gauge, with no leverage layer and no second aggregator underneath, and each pool's route is fixed. Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): A 3-of-5 multisig can add pools and move fees within hard-coded ranges with no timelock. Convex states that the multisig has no direct access to user deposits, and its shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Published price: Convex fees page (docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees, read 2026-11-03): "There is a 17% total fee on all CRV revenue generated by Curve LP's on the platform": "10%" to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), "4.5%" to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), "2%" to…
Best for: Inherited dependency surface — 9/10
Inherited dependency surface · weight 30%9/10Loss record own and inherited · weight 30%8/10Total take-rate and whether it is published · weight 20%9/10Strategy change control · weight 20%6/10
Quick pick
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): Headline rates that a footnote allows to be several times higher are marked down." Per-vault fee tables are public without a wallet (200, 2026-11-03). But the headline 10% + 2% does not cover asdCRV's extra 15% boost fee, and the docs do not show the fees charged underneath (Convex 17%, or Stake DAO). 6 holds. Weakest on strategy change control (2/10): Concentrator's ProxyAdmin and its aCRV vault are owned directly by a 6-of-9 Safe with no timelock contract in between, so upgrades and strategy changes can land in one multisig transaction. Its docs describe no timelock or strategy-approval process. Published price: Concentrator docs (docs.aladdin.club/concentrator, read 2026-11-03): "Concentrator takes a 10% treasury fee and a 2% harvest fee on yields.
Best for: Total take-rate and whether it is published — 6/10
Inherited dependency surface · weight 30%4/10Loss record own and inherited · weight 30%5/10Total take-rate and whether it is published · weight 20%6/10Strategy change control · weight 20%2/10
Quick pick
Tied for #2 · ordered by name, A to Z
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): Origin states one 20% performance fee on yield, never on principal, across OETH, Super OETH, OUSD and its ARM vaults, and says every APY it publishes is already net of it. The rate is a governance parameter with no published ceiling. Weakest on loss record own and inherited (3/10): In November 2020 an attacker drained about $7.7M from Origin's OUSD contracts through a reentrancy. Origin offered compensation equal to 100% of the deposited value, with larger holders paid 75% in OGN locked for a year. Published price: Origin's Performance Fees page (docs.originprotocol.com/yield-bearing-tokens/core-concepts/performance-fees, read 2026-11-03): "Origin charges a 20% performance fee on the yield its products generate.
Best for: Total take-rate and whether it is published — 7/10
Inherited dependency surface · weight 30%4/10Loss record own and inherited · weight 30%3/10Total take-rate and whether it is published · weight 20%7/10Strategy change control · weight 20%4/10
Quick pick
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.50 against 38.30)
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): CIAN's public fees page states an 8% performance fee, already netted out of the APY shown, and a 0.02% exit fee, with a worked example and no wallet needed. Its API reference carries a management-fee field the fees page does not explain. Weakest on strategy change control (2/10): CIAN says asset allocation runs through a multisig and withdrawals go through batched execution with manual review. Its stETH Yield Layer vault is owned by a 3-of-4 Safe rather than by its 1-day timelock. Published price: CIAN fees page (docs.cian.app/yieldlayer/for-users-quick-start/fees, read 2026-11-03): "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 · weight 30%3/10Loss record own and inherited · weight 30%5/10Total take-rate and whether it is published · weight 20%7/10Strategy change control · weight 20%2/10
Considered and not ranked
None left out by name
We assessed 7 products here and rank all 7. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 3 November 2026.
What this ranking does not assess
- 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 the protocols each vault inherits, its loss record on its own and inherited code, whether the total take-rate is published, and who can change a strategy.
Data checked Nov 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
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 yield aggregator 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; 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 Inherited dependency surface · 30% (Convex Finance 9/10, Concentrator (AladdinDAO) 4/10, Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) 4/10)Scored by Loss record own and inherited · 30% (Convex Finance 8/10, Concentrator (AladdinDAO) 5/10, Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) 3/10)
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Strategy change control · 20% (Convex Finance 6/10, Concentrator (AladdinDAO) 2/10, Origin (OUSD / OETH / ARM) 4/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: 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: Total take-rate and whether it is published (20%).
FAQs
4 questions readers ask before choosing yield aggregators.
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 advisor·No 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 signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
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
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges
Data checked Nov 2026
Boosted Curve LP staking; deposits route into Curve gauges. Strongest on inherited dependency surface (9/10): Convex's risk page names exactly two inherited platforms, Curve and Frax. A Curve LP deposit is staked into that pool's own Curve gauge, with no leverage layer and no second aggregator underneath, and each pool's route is fixed. Weakest on strategy change control (6/10): A 3-of-5 multisig can add pools and move fees within hard-coded ranges with no timelock. Convex states that the multisig has no direct access to user deposits, and its shutdown paths leave withdrawals open. Published price: Convex fees page (docs.convexfinance.com/convexfinance/faq/fees, read 2026-11-03): "There is a 17% total fee on all CRV revenue generated by Curve LP's on the platform": "10%" to cvxCRV stakers (paid as CRV), "4.5%" to CVX stakers (paid as cvxCRV), "2%" to…
Best for: Inherited dependency surface — 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