Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquidity Management
- Entity
- All 3 Beefy products
- Official website
- beefy.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)
Concentrated-liquidity manager from Beefy
Liquidity Management
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 liquidity management in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Fee stack read on chain9/10, the category best
- Manager audit and exploit record8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published return versus holding7/10 here; Charm Alpha Vaults scores 9
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority3/10 here; Charm Alpha Vaults scores 5
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 liquidity manager shows where it lands for you.
What will Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your position
- $10k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)
Compare all 4- 1Charm Alpha Vaults1 point above · stronger on return versus hold disclosure (9 against 7)80
- 3Steer Protocol Smart Pools9 points below · stronger on rebalance control (5 against 3)70$75
- 4Kamino Liquidity10 points below · stronger on rebalance control (5 against 3)69
For your setup
Find out if Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) 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 liquidity managerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.8 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
407+8.963.59#2/8Loading evidence…
203+1.925.08#8/8Loading evidence…
209+5.763.09#1/8Loading evidence…
208+5.127.59#2/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Charm Alpha Vaults, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 76–80 and ranks #1–#2
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 Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)’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.
Published return versus holding 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Charm Alpha Vaults+180#2 → #1
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Charm Alpha Vaults+180#2 → #1
Fee stack read on chain 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Charm Alpha Vaults+180#2 → #1
Manager audit and exploit record 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Charm Alpha Vaults+180#2 → #1
Published return versus holding 7 → 3 on its ladder · Steer Protocol Smart Pools passes it−469#2 → #3
Fee stack read on chain 9 → 1 on its ladder · Steer Protocol Smart Pools passes it−869#2 → #3
Manager audit and exploit record 8 → 0 on its ladder · Steer Protocol Smart Pools passes it−869#2 → #3
Smallest climb: published return versus holding 7 → 8 passes Charm Alpha Vaults, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Fee stack read on chain — 9/10, the category best
- Manager audit and exploit record — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published return versus holding — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Beefy's central design claim is that it does not realise impermanent loss because it never sells to rebalance. The complete sentence reads "By contrast, CLM does not sell tokens, meaning Range IL is not realized until the position is exited or moves out of range, meaning the aggregate IL of CLM products tends to be lower than with other ALM products." The cost is disclosed in the same document and is the thing to understand before depositing: "Overtime, the alt can become the larger or even dominant portion of the position, which is not suited to users who are uncomfortable holding an imbalanced proportion of the underperforming asset." You are not avoiding the loss, you are choosing to carry it as an unbalanced bag of the token that fell, for as long as you stay in. Read alongside the rebalance finding, the design argument is weaker than it sounds: on 2026-09-28 the median range across 216 active Base CLM strategies had not been reset in 164.1 hours, and a position left that long has had ample opportunity to move out of range, which is the exact condition under which Beefy concedes the loss is realised.
Competitive position
Where Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 816.3 of 30 · best 16.8
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) leads
- Published return versus holding#2 / 8
- Fee stack read on chain#1 / 8
- Manager audit and exploit record#2 / 8
Where it trails
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority#8 / 8
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.
Charm Alpha Vaults#1 of 8 · score 80 · 1.0 point ahead
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) leads on
- Fee stack read on chain9 vs 4
Charm Alpha Vaults leads on
- Published return versus holding9 vs 7
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5 vs 3
Largest single reason Charm Alpha Vaults is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Charm Alpha Vaults has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Steer Protocol Smart Pools#3 of 8 · score 70 · 9.0 points behind
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) leads on
- Published return versus holding7 vs 5
- Fee stack read on chain9 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record8 vs 7
Steer Protocol Smart Pools leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5 vs 3
Largest single reason Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) is ahead: published criteria (+8.6 display points).Scenario cost: Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Kamino Liquidity#4 of 8 · score 69 · 10.0 points behind
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) leads on
- Fee stack read on chain9 vs 2
- Manager audit and exploit record8 vs 5
Kamino Liquidity leads on
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5 vs 3
Largest single reason Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: Kamino Liquidity has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 79 · gap 1.0Why Charm Alpha Vaults ranks above Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCharm Alpha VaultsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.316.8−1.3, 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 criterionThisCharm Alpha VaultsPoints
Published return versus holding · w4079−2.56, worse
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · w2035−1.28, worse
Fee stack read on chain · w2094+3.20, better
Net7980−1.0
Your scenario
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) is not priced for this scenario
The manager's cut of the swap fees your position earns — not a trade fee, and not a charge on the deposit. Expected yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your position · your input$10k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/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$503 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest priced$50 · Kodiak IslandsDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Kodiak Islands
5 of 8 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #1 to #2 across one-point re-runs
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
Published return versus holdingstrength 7 · weight 40Report 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.Rebalancing policy and trigger authoritystrength 3 · 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.Fee stack read on chainstrength 9 · 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.Manager audit and exploit recordstrength 8 · 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.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure (Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) 8/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Manager audit and exploit record · 20%
- Control failure (Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) 3/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · 20%
- Information failure (Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) 7/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Published return versus holding · 40%
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: Fee stack read on chain (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Beefy has introduced a maximum performance fee structure of up to 9.5%." Re-fetched 28 September 2026 from docs.beefy.finance/ecosystem/beefy-bulletins/beefy-finance-fees-breakdown.md (HTTP 200), character-exact. The same page states "With our vaults, performance fees are included in the APY." and lists two other charges: for vaults that do not harvest on deposit "we assign a withdrawal fee of up to 0.1% to each vault", and for the zap tool "we charge a 0.05% zap fee on your deposited amounts". This is the one published rate in the category that the deployed contract reproduces exactly: on 28 September 2026 getAllFees() on CLM strategy 0xB0476548b59C0277eFc7fabf78d8229FA9ee38EA on Base (block 51897687) returned a performance total of 95000000000000000 on a 1e18 scale (worked example: 0.095 = 9.5%), with deposit and withdraw fees of zero. The fee is taken from harvested earnings, so it is charged on an IL-exclusive base.Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBeefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Optimism, Polygon, HyperEVM, Sonic, Monad, Ethereum, Linea, Avalanche, zkSync Era, Gnosis, Plasma, Rootstock, Robinhood Chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Beefy, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager): 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 79, #2 of 8. 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 liquidity_management:beefy_clm:2026.10.18:d0bc585ae0ff
Are you Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)? 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.