Intent Networks evaluated across bid set visibility, solver admission, network fee disclosure, and fallback when nobody fills.
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.
#1 of 6 · published ranking
CoW Protocol
81ChainChoice Score
4199
Why it leads
CoW Protocol scores higher than everything else in this ranking on its bid visibility.
Show the arithmetic
Best in this ranking on bid visibility (10/10; next 6/10)
Cost
Not priced· No comparable price is published
ReviewedNext review by Published Methodology 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.
No provider can pay for a position in this table. The code that computes this order cannot read which links carry a referral code, and every build proves it. Every score below rebuilds from the published criteria.Ranking v2026.11.1 · 4 criteria · 6 products · same inputs, same order
How we review · 6 ranked of 11 assessed · 4 criteria · 0 sponsor weight
How we review
6ranked
11assessed
4criteria
0sponsor weight
Recommendation first, comparison only if needed.
Reviewed and rechecked on the current cycle.
Commercial relationships disclosed before clickout.
Personal comparison
Intent Networks ranked comparison
No comparable price is published; ranking still uses verified product evidence.
RankProviderBest fitScore
1
CoW ProtocolBatch auction in which authorised solve...Top ranked
Bid set visibility — 10/10Trade-off: The transparency is real but the competition behind it is uneven. Across auction ids...
81score
Check availability for your country
CoW Protocol · cow.fi. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
2
UniswapXOff-chain request-for-quote awards a sh...
Solver admission — 8/10Trade-off: Chain support here means a reactor is deployed, not that a quoter will answer. Queryi...
68score
Check availability for your country
UniswapX · app.uniswap.org. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
3
NEAR IntentsMessage bus, reachable only with a Part...
Network fee disclosure — 8/10Trade-off: The 0.0001% headline is the smallest fee in this comparison and almost nobody pays on...
65score
Check availability for your country
NEAR Intents · near-intents.org. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
4
DEdeBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)Cross-chain order book where the maker...
Solver admission — 9/10Trade-off: The flat fee is dominant on small orders. docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-...
64score
Check availability for your country
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) · dln.trade. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
5
Relay ProtocolSigned request filled immediately by a...
Network fee disclosure — 8/10Trade-off: Relay is the clearest test of whether a buyer is buying transparency or competition,...
47score
Check availability for your country
Relay Protocol · relay.link. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
6
1inch FusionDescending-price auction in which the r...
Fallback when nobody fills — 4/10Trade-off: The gasless promise is EVM-only. Solana is on the supported list above because 1inch...
45score
Check availability for your country
1inch Fusion · 1inch.com. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
Ranked on 4 published criteria weighted 34/20/22/24, which set goal alignment — 30 of the 86 points. The rest: regional access 20 (constant here), evidence depth 18 (constant here), ease of use 10 (constant here), institutional trust 8 (constant here). Profile match is shown in breakdowns but carries no weight.
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%).
Audit
Infrastructure
Methodology
2026.11.1
published 10 November 2026
Providers tracked
860+
across 121 categories
Last verified
28 September 2026
newest dated pricing or sentiment read
Named on the roster
2 people
managing directors · 6 automated processes
Decision guide
What matters most before choosing in this category
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.
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?
Current engine lead
The #1 overall and the scoring weights
CoW ProtocolData checked Sep 2026
Batch auction in which authorised solvers submit competing settlements and the highest-scoring solution executes the batch.
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 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…
Best forBid set visibility — 10/10
Main tradeoffThe transparency is real but the competition behind it is uneven. Across auction ids 13537943 to 13537952 on 8 August 2026, 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 signupdocs.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.
Weighted criteria
Bid set visibility34%
Solver admission20%
Network fee disclosure22%
Fallback when nobody fills24%
Methodology
How this category is reviewed
Reviewed on bid set visibility, solver admission, network fee disclosure, and fallback when nobody fills.
The order on this page is the published ranking for this category. Every criterion, weight and source behind it is on the methodology page.
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.
Reviewed28 September 2026Method4 criteriaCategoryintents
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
