Provider at a glance
- Category
- DEXs
- Entity
- All 3 Balancer products
- Official website
- balancer.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 43 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Balancer
Programmable AMM with weighted pools
DEXs
#11 Overall
Ranked #11 of 12 DEXs in the published ranking
43
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is Balancer right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published criteria14.4/30 here; the category best is 30
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best decentralized exchange shows where it lands for you.
What will Balancer cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Balancer?
- Evidence: unknown0 of 2 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Balancer
Compare all 4- 9Aerodrome3 points above46
- 10Maverick Protocol3 points above46
- 12Raydium2 points below41$30
For your setup
Find out if Balancer fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Balancer 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 decentralized exchangeNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Balancer ranks #11
2 published criteria · Σ weight 100
This category publishes 2 criteria — security & track record; decentralization & trust-minimization — but no per-criterion strength has been established for Balancer yet. Its position comes from the engine's five dimensions below, measured against the 12 ranked rows. Per-criterion receipts appear once the evidence read lands.
DimensionAgainst the poolValueBestRank
Availability / 20 · constant here14.014.0#1/12
Published criteria / 3014.430.0#11/12
Friction / 10 · constant here2.72.7#1/12
Trust record / 8 · constant here3.23.2#1/12
Measured data / 18 · constant here5.55.5#1/12
Margin−3behind Maverick Protocol, #10
RobustnessNot scored on criteriaits position comes from the engine’s dimensions, not from criterion scores a re-read could move
Evidence0 of 2 scoredno receipt file for this category
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
It is within a tenth of the scale of the best in this ranking on no dimension that separates the products, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published criteria — 14.4/30 against a category best of 30/30
Record watch-outs
- Suffered a ~$128M v2 exploit in Nov 2025 (a swap-invariant rounding flaw; plus a 2023 pool bug and a ~$234k exploit of a dormant V1 pool in Aug 2026) — weigh its security record heavily
- Live TVL/volume shown for context (DefiLlama, dated), never scored
Competitive position
Where Balancer 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 / 1214.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#11 / 1214.4 of 30 · best 30.0
Friction#1 / 122.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 123.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 125.5 of 18 · constant here
Where Balancer leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
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.
Raydium#12 of 12 · score 41 · 2.0 points behind
Balancer leads onNo scored criterion
Raydium leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Balancer is ahead: published criteria (+9.6 display points).Scenario cost: Balancer has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Maverick Protocol#10 of 12 · score 46 · 3.0 points ahead
Balancer leads onNo scored criterion
Maverick Protocol leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Maverick Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Maverick Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Aerodrome#9 of 12 · score 46 · 3.0 points ahead
Balancer leads onNo scored criterion
Aerodrome leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Aerodrome is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Aerodrome has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
84 vs 43 · gap 41.0Why Uniswap ranks above Balancer
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 41.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisUniswapGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.430.0−40.6, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here5.55.5same
Net4384−41.0
Your scenario
Balancer is not priced for this scenario
Trading fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are 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
How do you buy?
How do you buy? · your inputTrading
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 October 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 median$307 of 12 rows priced
Cheapest priced$2.40 · VelodromeDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Velodrome
5 of 12 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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.
0 of 2 cells scored
Score evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsReading…category publishes no receipt file
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.RobustnessNot scored on criteriano re-run describes this row
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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
12 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Security & track recordstrength — · weight 60Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Decentralization & trust-minimizationstrength — · weight 40Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Security & track record · 60%
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Decentralization & trust-minimization · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: Oracle failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Swap fee: set per pool; "When a pool is registered, the initial swap fee is passed as a parameter" and limits "are set at the pool level (0.001% - 10% for standard Balancer Weighted, and 0.0001% - 10% for Stable pools)" (Balancer docs, docs.balancer.fi/llms-full.txt, read 3 November 2026); no default rate is published. AMM: weighted / custom pools (programmable). Since 2020. 12 chains. BAL governance (1-BAL-1-vote; veBAL retired). Audited; suffered the November 2025 V2 Composable Stable Pool exploit (Balancer's own post-mortem put total losses at 121.1 million when read 28 October 2026), plus smaller 2020, 2023 and 2026 incidents. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama), not scored.Balancer — official page at docs.balancer.fi ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBalancer — official page at docs.balancer.fi ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Balancer, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Balancer: 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.
11 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 43, #11 of 12. 0 of 2 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 20 October 2026
2026.10.11Two new requirements: the chain you swap on, and a MiCA authorisation in the onramp's own name- added DEXs: "Which chain do you swap on?" (Ethereum or another EVM chain, Solana, or several). Solana keeps only Orca and Raydium; EVM removes Orca, Raydium and Osmosis; it keeps a venue with two years of pools on any EVM chain, not necessarily the reader's. Each venue's chains come from data/dex-chain-deployments.json, read from DefiLlama on 2026-10-20.
- added Onramps: "Authorised under MiCA in its own name" removes Transak, Mercuryo (it rides Criptan's authorisation), Stripe (its terms do not name the crypto provider), Topper (Uphold), Alchemy Pay and five regional rails (Koywe, Onramp Money, Onmeta, Fonbnk, Kotani Pay); six providers authorised in their own name remain. Each row is matched to ESMA's register by LEI (data/esma-casps.json, read 2026-10-10).
- added On every build a test holds each of the eight flagship categories to at least one answer that changes its winner.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt dex:balancer-dex:2026.10.18:192ecba07360
Are you Balancer? 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.