ChainChoice verdict

Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)

Automation & KeepersEntity Chainlink · 4 productsCountry not setHistorical

#7 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 39 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 41 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.

Find my best

Historical verdict. The record carries a sunset date of 5 Aug 2026. The score is what the methodology produced from the evidence read at the time; it is kept so the ranking history stays auditable, not as a recommendation.

Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer

Why this rank

Why Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 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 (17.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 1 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100

CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence

6+5.386.08#3/7Primary

2+1.924.09#6/7Primary

7+5.386.07#1/7Primary

8+4.616.09#2/7Primary

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin−22behind Mimic Protocol, #6

RobustnessNot scored on criteriait stopped operating on 2026-08-05, so its criterion scores are zeroed in the score and no move is computed

Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link

Strengths

Where it leads

2 from the score data

Record says best for

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 8/10
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 7/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

2 from the score data

Record watch-outs

This is a product mid-retirement whose two halves point in opposite directions, and the failure mode is that the dead half still LOOKS alive to every check short of an event scan. What the docs URL still describes — Automation v2.1, checkUpkeep, upkeeps, LINK balances, the Ethereum registry at 0x6593c7De001fC8542bB1703532EE1E5aA0D458fD — is no longer executing: last UpkeepPerformed 2026-08-05T18:01:23Z, block 25690383, and zero since across every block to 2026-08-14. Yet that registry answers getState() normally, reports paused = false, still counts 201 registered upkeeps and still holds 19,603 LINK. Nothing about it returns an error; it simply performs nothing, and in eight days only two owner addresses out of those 201 have cancelled and withdrawn. Anyone registering a new upkeep today is registering into a stopped network, and https://automation.chain.link/ says so on its own face: "Chainlink Automation is being deprecated". What IS executing is CRE — a different programming model (a WASM workflow deployed to a DON, not a Solidity view function evaluated per block), on a different trust footing (the condition is no longer replayable by a third party from public state, only hash-verifiable against source the deployer chooses to share), behind a manual approval queue, under an Early Access notice, capped at 3 workflows per linked key, and with no published price at all — the docs direct pricing questions to in-app support. The four scores grade the honest composite as the rubric directs; the survives_the_vendor score of 2 is set by an explicit band rule (past sunset + access-gated successor), not by a judgement that Chainlink has abandoned the space. A buyer who reads only the score should read the liveness line too: the successor is not vapour, it wrote onchain at 13:50:11 UTC on the day of this research, roughly ten minutes before the file was closed. Two scope disciplines are preserved: the Forwarder appears throughout Chainlink's docs as an access-control device, and every such use — msg.sender pinning, granting an executor permission on your contract, unique forwarder addresses — was excluded from criterion 1 as a banned relayers axis, the Forwarder being cited only as an onchain execution witness; and Chainlink's data-feed line is ranked separately as 'chainlink' in Oracles and 'chainlink_ccip' in Cross-Chain Messaging, with nothing from those products used here.

Competitive position

Where Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 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 · pool best

Published criteria#7 / 70.0 of 30 · best 17.8

Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · pool best

Where Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) leads

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#3 / 7
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet#1 / 7
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute#2 / 7

Where it trails

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#6 / 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.

Browse all 7

Mimic Protocol#6 of 7 · score 63 · 22.0 points ahead

Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) leads on

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 4
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute8 vs 6

Mimic Protocol leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published3 vs 2

Largest single reason Mimic Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+28.9 display points).Scenario cost: Mimic Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Keep3r Network#5 of 7 · score 65 · 24.0 points ahead

Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6 vs 2
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 4
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute8 vs 4

Keep3r Network leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published9 vs 2

Largest single reason Keep3r Network is ahead: published criteria (+30.9 display points).Scenario cost: Keep3r Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

DeFi Saver Automation#4 of 7 · score 67 · 26.0 points ahead

Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6 vs 4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 6

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published4 vs 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute9 vs 8

Largest single reason DeFi Saver Automation is ahead: published criteria (+33.5 display points).Scenario cost: DeFi Saver Automation has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)

80 vs 41 · gap 39.0

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; a floor bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (46.3) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight0.017.8−46.3

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2868−1.79

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3028−5.76

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1886+1.15

Net4180−39.0≈

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 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.

3–5 questions
No account required
Ranking-blind: no commercial input
Personalised in under 60 seconds

Find my best automation & keeperNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.

Your scenario

Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) is not priced for this scenario

Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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

Usage per month

Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 Aug 2026.

your cost/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced

Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter

Cost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 14 Aug 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

Public receiptsAvailable4 quoted with a source URL

Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness

Rank stabilityHoldsone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness45 days agonewest read 14 Aug 2026 · current

Primary-source share100%4 of 4 sourced cells

Conflicts0file and table agree

The newest evidence read on the platform is 5 Sept 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 14 Aug 2026.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was truestrength 6 · weight 28Report an errordocs.chain.linkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 2 · weight 30Report an errordocs.chain.linkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 7 · weight 24Report an errordocs.chain.linkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 8 · weight 18Report an errordocs.chain.linkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: VERIFIED CHARACTER-EXACT 2026-08-14 against the rendered page. "Chainlink Automation requires only an execution fee for transactions onchain. This fee includes the transaction cost, a node operator percentage fee, and a small fixed gas overhead accounting for gas between the network and the registry." / "There is no registration fee or other fees for any offchain computation." / "On Automation v2.3 and earlier, there is an additional flat per-transaction fee of 0.01 LINK in the following cases: - For testnet transactions on all supported networks to account for node infrastructure costs." / "Any upkeep that has not spent more than an aggregated amount of 0.1 LINK fees over the span of its lifetime is subject to a 0.1 LINK fee." — all four on https://docs.chain.link/chainlink-automation/overview/automation-economics. Ethereum Mainnet Payment Premium % = 20, Gas Ceiling Multiplier = 2, Minimum Upkeep Spend (LINK) = 0.1, re-read on https://docs.chain.link/chainlink-automation/overview/supported-networks. Recorded as disclosure only; not ranked in any criterion on this page. CORRECTED DURING VERIFICATION — the successor is NOT silent on price, it declines to publish one: "CRE is currently in Early Access. For pricing details, reach out via the in-app support on the CRE platform at app.chain.link/cre/discover." (https://docs.chain.link/cre/reference/gelato-migration-ts, Last Updated 2026-02-16). No rate is published anywhere: the CRE execution unit is "Credits Used", defined as "Cost of this execution in CRE credits" (https://docs.chain.link/cre/guides/operations/monitoring-workflows), and the documentation index at https://docs.chain.link/llms.txt lists no CRE pricing, billing or credits page at all. Pricing-shaped URLs tried 2026-08-14: automation-economics (200, quoted above), supported-networks (200, per-chain premium table), https://docs.chain.link/cre/service-quotas (200, quotas only, no prices), https://chain.link/automation (confirmed HTTP 301 to https://docs.chain.link/cre/reference/cla-migration-ts — the Automation marketing page has been retired into a migration guide).Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDChainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, base, polygon, avalanche, bnb-chain, gnosis, scroll, zksync-era, linea, celo, mantle, sonic, ink, world-chain, xlayer, hyperliquid, megaeth, plasma, jovay, pharos, adi, solana
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Re-verified 2026-08-14. No geographic restriction is published on any product page read: https://docs.chain.link/chainlink-automation, /overview/automation-economics, /overview/supported-networks, /guides/job-scheduler, https://docs.chain.link/cre, /cre/account/deploy-access and /cre/service-quotas name no country, region or sanctioned-territory limit. The sunsetting product was permissionless at the contract layer — registration and funding happen by transacting with the published Registrar and Registry on Ethereum Mainnet, with no account, no KYC and no geographic check, and "Anyone can call the addFunds() function" (https://docs.chain.link/chainlink-automation/overview/automation-economics). The successor is NOT permissionless, though the gate is discretionary rather than geographic: a chain.link account is required and "Deploying workflows to a Chainlink DON requires Early Access approval", after which "Our team will review your request and get back to you via email shortly." (https://docs.chain.link/cre/account/deploy-access). SCOPE NOTE ON THE CHAIN LIST: the chains above are the CRE (successor) mainnet list from https://docs.chain.link/cre/supported-networks-go (Last Updated 2026-07-13), with Solana marked write-only there — "Solana support is currently write-only. Read and Log Trigger capabilities are in development." The sunsetting Automation product covers only TEN mainnets on its own supported-networks page (Ethereum, Arbitrum One, Avalanche, Base, BNB Chain, Gnosis, OP Mainnet, Polygon, Scroll, ZkSync), so a buyer must not read this list as Automation's footprint. HONEST LIMIT, independently reproduced: the Chainlink Terms of Service at https://chain.link/terms, which the CRE docs require users to accept, returns HTTP 200 with 238,982 bytes of HTML but renders no body text — confirmed by curl (3,461 characters of navigation chrome only, and zero occurrences of 'sanction', 'jurisdiction', 'restricted person', 'OFAC', 'prohibited' or 'governing law' in the raw markup) and separately by WebFetch, which returned no body. Its jurisdiction, sanctions and restricted-persons clauses are unread. 'global' here means no published geographic restriction that I could read, not a verified absence of one in the contract terms.

Legal entity on file: Chainlink, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.

7 methodology entries

14 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 41, #7 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
16 Sept 2026
2026.09.15
Dimension 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.
14 Sept 2026
2026.09.12
A tie is decided by the published criteria first
- changed Tie key: criteriaAverage (unrounded weighted average of the published criterion scores) now comes directly after the weighted total and before the generic factors, in the engine, in formula.tieBreakChain and in the note that describes it.
- changed Published order: 130 positions move in 46 categories and no score changes. Five published #1s change: wallet (MetaMask → Rabby Wallet), stablecoin_issuance (Anchorage Digital → Brale), options_vaults (SOFA.org → Typus Finance), flash_loans (Dai Flash Mint → Morpho) and tokenised_commodities (Kinesis Gold → Matrixdock Gold).
- fixed Personalised weights are no longer rounded to one decimal. Rounding each dimension weight separately changed the ratio between dimensions the reader had not touched (a trust priority turned objectiveFit and quantitative 30:18 into 27.4:16.5), so a stated priority could reorder rows on criteria nobody re-weighted. Published weights are whole numbers, so no published order or score changes from this.
- changed Personalised orders: replaying the golden answer suite against the fixtures committed with 2026.09.11, 1,002 of 2,217 cases change their order and 181 their #1 (21 of them country briefs), mostly where answers leave rows tied on whole points and the criteria now decide; 45 change their confidence label. The tie key changes no score; the unrounded weights can move a reader’s weighted total, and with it their Fit for you number, by a small amount.
10 Sept 2026
2026.09.5
The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
- changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
- changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
- fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.

Full methodology changelog

Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version: 2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot: Evidence read 14 Aug 2026
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(automation_keepers, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: automation_keepers:chainlink_automation:2026.09.15:4e1a076952e2

What changed in this methodology version?

2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources

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.
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.
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.

How automation & keepers are weighted Changelog

Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.