Provider at a glance
- Category
- Yield Aggregators
- Entity
- All 3 Beefy products
- Official website
- beefy.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 52 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Beefy
Multichain auto-compounding vaults
Yield Aggregators
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 yield aggregators in the published ranking
52
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $152 commission/yr
Is Beefy right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Inherited dependency surface2/10 here; Stake DAO scores 5
- Loss record own and inherited4/10 here; CIAN Yield Layer scores 5
- Total take-rate and whether it is published5/10 here; CIAN Yield Layer scores 7
- Strategy change control3/10 here; Stake DAO scores 6
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 yield aggregator shows where it lands for you.
What will Beefy cost you?
$152 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Performance fee on earnings
- 9.5%
Level with the median of 3 priced yield aggregators.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Beefy?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Beefy
Compare all 4- 4CIAN Yield Layer5 points above · stronger on fee stack transparency (7 against 5)57$128
- 5Stake DAO4 points above · stronger on dependency surface (5 against 2)56
- 6Yearn Finance4 points above · stronger on dependency surface (5 against 2)56
For your setup
Find out if Beefy 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 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 yield aggregatorNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Beefy 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 (10.9 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
302+1.924.09#7/7Loading evidence…
304+3.844.08#4/7Loading evidence…
205+3.206.09#5/7Loading evidence…
203+1.924.06#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Yearn Finance, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 50–54 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 Beefy’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.
Inherited dependency surface 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Yearn Finance+256#7 → #6
Loss record own and inherited 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Yearn Finance+256#7 → #6
Total take-rate and whether it is published 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes Yearn Finance+356#7 → #6
Strategy change control 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Yearn Finance+356#7 → #6
Smallest climb: inherited dependency surface 2 → 4 passes Yearn Finance, #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
- Inherited dependency surface — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Loss record own and inherited — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Total take-rate and whether it is published — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Strategy change control — 3/10 against a category best of 6/10
Record watch-outs
- An 86% historical vault retirement rate is the real product characteristic: your vault being EOL'd is the base case, not the exception, and an EOL'd vault stops compounding until you actively exit it. TVL $104.8M on 5 Aug 2026 against a $1.30B peak on 26 Nov 2021.
- Raw fetch of vaults.md (19KB) yields only the 0.05% zap fee; on fees it says the breakdown is 'presented inside the Deposit and Withdraw module in a vault.' The '?ask=' parameter is an AI documentation-assistant query, not a real page anchor. The figures ARE correct but live at a different URL, which publishes verbatim: '3.0% is distributed back to $BIFI tokenholders; 0.5% is allocated to the Beefy treasury; 0.5% is awarded to the vault strategist; and 0.05% is awarded to the one calling the harvest function' (=4.05%), BIP:45 'up to 9.5%', 'a withdrawal fee of up to 0.1%', and the 0.05% zap fee. Note the real BIP:45 split is c.3.06-3.24% BIFI / c.5.44-5.75% treasury / 0.5% strategist / 0.01-0.5% caller — i.e. the uplift accrues almost entirely to Beefy's treasury, a fact the research omits. Read again 15 September 2026: the pricing source now points at the Fees Breakdown bulletin, and Beefy's own fees API shows 546 of 550 active vaults at 9.5%, so 4.05% is no longer the rate a typical live vault charges.
Competitive position
Where Beefy 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 / 78.2 of 30 · best 19.4
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 Beefy leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Inherited dependency surface#7 / 7
- Total take-rate and whether it is published#5 / 7
- Strategy change control#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.
Yearn Finance#6 of 7 · score 56 · 4.0 points ahead
Beefy leads on
- Loss record own and inherited4 vs 1
Yearn Finance leads on
- Inherited dependency surface5 vs 2
- Strategy change control6 vs 3
Largest single reason Yearn Finance is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Yearn Finance has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Stake DAO#5 of 7 · score 56 · 4.0 points ahead
Beefy leads on
- Total take-rate and whether it is published5 vs 1
Stake DAO leads on
- Inherited dependency surface5 vs 2
- Strategy change control6 vs 3
Largest single reason Stake DAO is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Stake DAO has no verified pricing for this scenario.
CIAN Yield Layer#4 of 7 · score 57 · 5.0 points ahead
Beefy leads on
- Strategy change control3 vs 2
CIAN Yield Layer leads on
- Inherited dependency surface3 vs 2
- Loss record own and inherited5 vs 4
- Total take-rate and whether it is published7 vs 5
Largest single reason CIAN Yield Layer is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: CIAN Yield Layer is −$24 against Beefy.
Against the leader
81 vs 52 · gap 29.0Why Convex Finance ranks above Beefy
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 29.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisConvex FinanceGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.219.4−29.1, 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 criterionThisConvex FinancePoints
Inherited dependency surface · w3029−6.72, worse
Loss record own and inherited · w3048−3.84, worse
Total take-rate and whether it is published · w2059−2.56, worse
Strategy change control · w2036−1.92, worse
Net5281−29.0
Your scenario
What Beefy costs on your scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross 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 stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Performance fee on earnings · published rate9.5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 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.
$152
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1523 of 7 rows priced · Beefy at the median
Cheapest priced$128 · CIAN Yield LayerBeefy costs +$24 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with CIAN Yield Layer
4 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 15 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 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Inherited dependency surfacestrength 2 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Loss record own and inheritedstrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Total take-rate and whether it is publishedstrength 5 · weight 20Report an error—15 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.Strategy change controlstrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—15 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: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Inherited dependency surface · 30% (Beefy 2/10)Scored by Loss record own and inherited · 30% (Beefy 4/10)
- Control failure (Beefy 3/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Strategy change control · 20%
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Beefy's fee page still presents a 'typical vault' at 4.05% (3.0% to $BIFI holders, 0.5% treasury, 0.5% strategist, 0.05% harvest caller), but since BIP:45 Beefy applies "a maximum performance fee structure of up to 9.5%" (c. 3.06-3.24% $BIFI, c. 5.44-5.75% treasury, 0.5% strategist, 0.01-0.5% caller), and Beefy's own fees API shows 546 of 550 active vaults at 9.5% on 15 September 2026 (3 at 4.5%, 1 at 0.5%). Fees are built into the displayed APY. Vaults that do not harvest on deposit carry a withdrawal fee of up to 0.1% (13 active vaults at 0.1%, 5 at 0.01%, 532 at 0%). Beefy ZAP V2 charges 0.05% on deposited amounts when entering or exiting.Beefy — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDBeefy — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Permissionless multichain contracts; Beefy publishes no terms of service or geographic restriction — the rendered app.beefy.com front end links no terms page, beefy.com/terms returns 404, and the docs index (docs.beefy.finance/llms.txt) lists no legal page (checked 15 September 2026). Bucket: global.
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: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 52, #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 yield_aggregators:beefy_yieldagg:2026.10.18:fecb1dd34c9f
Are you Beefy? 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.