Provider at a glance
- Category
- Intent Networks
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- 1inch.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 45 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
1inch Fusion
Descending-price auction swaps
Intent Networks
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 intent networks in the published ranking
45
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is 1inch Fusion right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Bid set visibility2/10 here; NEAR Intents scores 6
- Fallback when nobody fills4/10 here; NEAR Intents scores 6
- Network fee disclosure2/10 here; NEAR Intents scores 8
- Solver admission2/10 here; deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best intent network shows where it lands for you.
What will 1inch Fusion cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is 1inch Fusion?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to 1inch Fusion
Compare all 4- 4NEAR Intents20 points above · stronger on bid visibility (6 against 2)65
- 5deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)19 points above · stronger on solver admission (9 against 2)64
- 6Relay Protocol2 points above · stronger on network fee disclosure (8 against 2)47
For your setup
Find out if 1inch Fusion fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where 1inch Fusion lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best intent networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why 1inch Fusion ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (7.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
342+2.184.010#6/7Loading evidence…
202+1.287.09#5/7Loading evidence…
222+1.418.08#7/7Loading evidence…
244+3.076.09#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Relay Protocol, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 43–47 and stays #7
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of 1inch Fusion’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Bid set visibility 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Relay Protocol+249#7 → #6
Solver admission 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Relay Protocol+247#7 → #6
Network fee disclosure 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Relay Protocol+248#7 → #6
Fallback when nobody fills 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Relay Protocol+248#7 → #6
Smallest climb: bid set visibility 2 → 4 passes Relay Protocol, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Bid set visibility — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Fallback when nobody fills — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Network fee disclosure — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Solver admission — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The gasless promise is EVM-only. Solana is on the supported list above because 1inch runs a Solana Fusion product: help.1inch.com/en/articles/11892029-solana-fusion-on-1inch-how-it-works states "Unlike EVM networks, where this process starts off-chain, Solana Fusion is fully on-chain from the start" — but the same page states "You'll need a small amount of SOL in your wallet to pay the transaction (network) fee when placing the intent", which contradicts the blanket no-gas framing of the Fusion FAQ. Separately, a low score here is a statement about auditability, not about execution quality, which this category does not measure: api.llama.fi/overview/aggregators on 2026-08-08 records 1inch Swap at $152,718,976 over 24 hours and $2,518,137,087 over 30 days. That does not put it ahead of every other venue here: only one other venue in this comparison appears in that dataset at all (CoWSwap, at $126,627,819 and $2,506,326,132, a 30-day gap of under 0.5%), and 1inch is not in the overall top five, which on that date ran LiquidMesh $868,750,657, 0x Aggregator $416,553,129, Binance Wallet $381,802,771, Jupiter $278,497,706 and OKX Swap $274,004,918. The figure also covers 1inch Swap in aggregate, not Fusion in isolation.
Competitive position
Where 1inch Fusion leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 76.0 of 30 · best 19.8
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where 1inch Fusion leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Bid set visibility#6 / 7
- Solver admission#5 / 7
- Network fee disclosure#7 / 7
- Fallback when nobody fills#5 / 7
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Relay Protocol#6 of 7 · score 47 · 2.0 points ahead
1inch Fusion leads on
- Bid set visibility2 vs 0
- Fallback when nobody fills4 vs 3
Relay Protocol leads on
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 2
Largest single reason Relay Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: Relay Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)#5 of 7 · score 64 · 19.0 points ahead
1inch Fusion leads onNo scored criterion
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads on
- Bid set visibility3 vs 2
- Solver admission9 vs 2
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 2
Largest single reason deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) is ahead: published criteria (+19.0 display points).Scenario cost: deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
NEAR Intents#4 of 7 · score 65 · 20.0 points ahead
1inch Fusion leads onNo scored criterion
NEAR Intents leads on
- Bid set visibility6 vs 2
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 2
- Fallback when nobody fills6 vs 4
Largest single reason NEAR Intents is ahead: published criteria (+19.5 display points).Scenario cost: NEAR Intents has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 45 · gap 36.0Why CoW Protocol ranks above 1inch Fusion
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 36.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCoW ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight6.019.8−35.9, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisCoW ProtocolPoints
Bid set visibility · w34210−8.70, worse
Solver admission · w2027−3.20, worse
Network fee disclosure · w2228−4.22, worse
Fallback when nobody fills · w2447−2.30, worse
Net4581−36.0
Your scenario
1inch Fusion is not priced for this scenario
Transfer fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Bid set visibilitystrength 2 · weight 34Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Solver admissionstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Network fee disclosurestrength 2 · weight 22Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Fallback when nobody fillsstrength 4 · weight 24Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.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% (1inch Fusion 2/10)Scored by Solver admission · 20% (1inch Fusion 2/10)Scored by Fallback when nobody fills · 24% (1inch Fusion 4/10)
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- help.1inch.com/en/articles/6800254-1inch-fusion-faq, fetched 28 September 2026, prices the product only by what the user does not pay: "It doesn't require any gas fees for the user to execute a swap (outside of fast mode), as the taker (aka the resolver) pays for all related transaction costs." No Fusion fee rate is published. The only basis-point figures in 1inch's resolver onboarding documentation (business.1inch.com/portal/documentation/resolvers/introduction, fetched 28 September 2026) sit in its Limit Orders subsection, which covers a different product. The statement that the Fusion-side resolver fee is dormant appears in no product documentation read. It is in a 2023 blog post (1inch.com/blog/post/fusion-swap-resolving-onchain-component, last modified 7 May 2026): "totalFee is a fee that all resolvers have to pay to the 1inch Foundation (Important: currently this feature is not used - resolvers don't pay any fees to the 1inch Foundation)".1inch Fusion — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USD1inch Fusion — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, Linea, BNB Chain, Gnosis, Optimistic Ethereum, Polygon, zkSync Era, Sonic, Robinhood Chain, Solana
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with 1inch Fusion: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 45, #7 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt intents:oneinch_fusion:2026.10.18:dc470144c3be
Are you 1inch Fusion? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.