The score, by dimension
- the same for all 7
- #7 of 7 · best 17.8
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)
Chainlink's keeper network
Historical#7 of all 7 worldwide41
- Rank
- #7 of all 7 worldwide
- Your cost
- Not priced on this basis
- Evidence
- High4 of 4 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read September 2026checked · re-read due
Historical verdict. The record carries a sunset date of 5 August 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.
The verdict
Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) is #7 of 7 published automation & keepers; it scores 8/10 on published lateness bound, where the category best is 9. Its widest gap is survives the vendor: 2/10, where Keep3r Network scores 9. Choose Keep3r Network if survives the vendor matters most.
Is Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) right for you?
Suits you if
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7/10, the category best
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published2/10 here; Keep3r Network scores 9
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6/10 here; the category best is 8
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 automation network shows where it lands for you.
What will Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
If it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 4DeFi Saver AutomationIf survives the vendor matters most: 425 points above · stronger on survives the vendor (4 against 2)66
- 5Keep3r NetworkIf survives the vendor matters most: 924 points above · stronger on survives the vendor (9 against 2)65
- 6Mimic ProtocolIf survives the vendor matters most: 322 points above · stronger on survives the vendor (3 against 2)63
Provider at a glance
- Category
- Automation & Keepers
- Entity
- All 3 Chainlink products
- Official website
- docs.chain.link
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in September 2026.
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.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best automation networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
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 this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
286+5.386.08#3/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28302+1.924.09#6/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28247+5.385.07#1/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28188+4.616.09#2/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−22behind Mimic Protocol, #6 of all 7 worldwide, on the published score
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
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 7/10, the category best
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- No upkeep has run on Chainlink Automation's Ethereum registry since 5 August 2026, and its newer registries show only cancellations; Chainlink's successor (CRE) needs its approval to use.
- 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 in the registry's complete log stream as read on 2026-09-28. Yet at block 26,077,564 on 2026-09-28 that registry answered getState() normally, reported paused = false, still counted 192 registered upkeeps and still held 18,830.53 LINK. Nothing about it returns an error; it simply performs nothing, and in the eight days to 2026-08-14 only two owner addresses out of the 201 then registered cancelled and withdrew; by 2026-09-28 the count had fallen only to 192. 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, capped at 3 workflows per linked key "ahead of general availability", and with no published price at all — the docs direct pricing questions to in-app support. 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 2026-08-14, roughly ten minutes before that research file was closed, and its forwarder logged ReportProcessed again at block 26,077,554 on the 2026-09-28 re-read. 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
How Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) places on each criterion
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.
Against the leader
80 vs 41 · gap 39.0Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)
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% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight0.017.8−46.3, 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 criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2868−1.79, worse
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3028−5.76, worse
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1886+1.15, better
Net4180−39.0≈
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 · your input10
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 · USDTypical costNot statedFewer than 5 priced rows: no typical cost is named · 0 of 7 rows priced
Lowest fee, priced rowsNone 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 typical, 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.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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 10 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was truestrength 6 · weight 28Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 2 · weight 30Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 7 · weight 24Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 8 · weight 18Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · 28%
- Liveness failure (Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 7/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · 24%
- Execution failure (Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 8/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · 18%
- Exit failure (Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) 2/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · 30%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fetched 28 September 2026 from https://
docs .chain .link /chainlink-automation /overview /automation-economics, unchanged since August: "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:" followed by "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." The Ethereum Mainnet table on https:// docs .chain .link /chainlink-automation /overview /supported-networks still reads Payment Premium % 20, Gas Ceiling Multiplier 2, Minimum Upkeep Spend (LINK) 0.1. These are prices for a product that is no longer executing: the Ethereum registry 0x6593c7De001fC8542bB1703532EE1E5aA0D458fD has emitted no UpkeepPerformed since 5 August 2026. The successor still publishes no rate. https:// docs .chain .link /cre /reference /gelato-migration-ts, fetched 28 September 2026, says only "For pricing details, reach out via the in-app support on the CRE platform at app.chain.link/cre/discover ." https:// chain .link /automation still redirects to https:// docs .chain .link /cre /reference /cla-migration-ts. Recorded as disclosure only; price ranks in no criterion on this page.Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDChainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 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 14 August 2026. 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 13 July 2026), 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 could be read, not a verified absence of one in the contract terms.
Legal entity on file: Chainlink, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment): 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.11.1Score 41, #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 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt automation_keepers:chainlink_automation:2026.11.1:89ccfa60e9be
Are you Chainlink Automation (migrating to Chainlink Runtime Environment)? 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.