Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquidity Management
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- charm.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Charm Alpha Vaults
Concentrated-liquidity vaults
Liquidity Management
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 8 liquidity management in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Charm Alpha Vaults right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published return versus holding9/10, the category best
- Manager audit and exploit record8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5/10 here; the category best is 8
- Fee stack read on chain4/10 here; Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) scores 9
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 Charm Alpha Vaults cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your position
- $10k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Charm Alpha Vaults?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Charm Alpha Vaults
Compare all 4- 2Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)1 point below · stronger on fee stack onchain (9 against 4)79
- 3Steer Protocol Smart Pools10 points below · stronger on fee stack onchain (5 against 4)70$75
- 4Kamino Liquidity11 points below · weaker on return versus hold disclosure (7 against 9)69
For your setup
Find out if Charm Alpha Vaults fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Charm Alpha Vaults 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 it leads
Why Charm Alpha Vaults ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (22.4 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
409+11.523.59#1/8Loading evidence…
205+3.205.08#3/8Loading evidence…
204+2.563.09#4/8Loading 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+1over Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager), #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–80 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 Charm Alpha Vaults’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 9 → 8 on its ladder · Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) passes it−179#1 → #2
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority 5 → 4 on its ladder · Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) passes it−180#1 → #2
Fee stack read on chain 4 → 3 on its ladder · Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) passes it−180#1 → #2
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published return versus holding — 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
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Fee stack read on chain — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The vault Charm uses as the worked example of its versus-hold chart is dead, and the docs still link to it. Reading 0x7adee9c6772df5e9b48a1d2580403af33a4a20e3 on Ethereum at block 25731477 on 2026-08-11 returned totalSupply() = 0, maxTotalSupply() = 0 and lastTimestamp() = 1688701571, i.e. 7 July 2023, so the documentation's headline claim of being 8.24% "better than holding the assets from 17th February to 25th June" is illustrated with a WETH/USDT vault that has held nothing for over three years and whose deposit cap is now zero. It is also a previous-generation V1 AlphaVault, not the AlphaProVault the technical reference describes. Charm's live disclosure is still the best in the category by a distance, but the reader must go find a funded current-generation vault to see it, and DefiLlama put Charm Finance V2 at $1,813,124 of TVL on 2026-09-28.
Competitive position
Where Charm Alpha Vaults 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#1 / 816.8 of 30 · pool best
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 Charm Alpha Vaults leads
- Published return versus holding#1 / 8
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority#3 / 8
- Manager audit and exploit record#2 / 8
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.
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)#2 of 8 · score 79 · 1.0 point behind
Charm Alpha Vaults leads on
- Published return versus holding9 vs 7
- Rebalancing policy and trigger authority5 vs 3
Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) leads on
- Fee stack read on chain9 vs 4
Largest single reason Charm Alpha Vaults is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Steer Protocol Smart Pools#3 of 8 · score 70 · 10.0 points behind
Charm Alpha Vaults leads on
- Published return versus holding9 vs 5
- Manager audit and exploit record8 vs 7
Steer Protocol Smart Pools leads on
- Fee stack read on chain5 vs 4
Largest single reason Charm Alpha Vaults is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: Charm Alpha Vaults has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Kamino Liquidity#4 of 8 · score 69 · 11.0 points behind
Charm Alpha Vaults leads on
- Published return versus holding9 vs 7
- Fee stack read on chain4 vs 2
- Manager audit and exploit record8 vs 5
Kamino Liquidity leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Charm Alpha Vaults is ahead: published criteria (+11.2 display points).Scenario cost: Kamino Liquidity has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
80 vs 79 · gap 1.0Why Charm Alpha Vaults ranks above Beefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)
DimensionThisBeefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.816.3+1.3, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisBeefy CLM (Cowcentrated Liquidity Manager)Points
Published return versus holding · w4097+2.56, better
Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · w2053+1.28, better
Fee stack read on chain · w2049−3.20, worse
Net8079+1.0
Your scenario
Charm Alpha Vaults 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 9 · 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 5 · 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 4 · 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 (Charm Alpha Vaults 8/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Manager audit and exploit record · 20%
- Control failure (Charm Alpha Vaults 5/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Rebalancing policy and trigger authority · 20%
- Information failure (Charm Alpha Vaults 9/10): 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
- "There is a flat performance fee of 2% to 5% swap fees." and "There are no exit fees, AUM fees, or any other fees." Re-fetched 28 September 2026 from learn.charm.fi/charm/provide-liquidity/fees.md (HTTP 200); both strings are character-exact. The same page adds that a third-party vault creator may layer its own charge: "Community Vault managers may charge additional fees for the Community Vaults.", and its own worked example for a vault charging a 5% manager fee on $100 of Uniswap fees ends "the vault's depositors receive $94, the user receives $5, and and Charm receives $1", which is a 1% Charm cut, not 2%. Verification note: the quoted band describes Charm's own cut only, and the deployed contracts do not match it in either direction. Read on 28 September 2026, the AlphaProVaultFactory 0x5B7B8b487D05F77977b7ABEec5F922925B9b2aFa returns protocolFee() = 10000 on a 1e6 scale on Ethereum, Base and Arbitrum (worked example: 10000 / 1,000,000 = 1%), below the stated 2% floor, while the separate per-vault managerFee sits at the contract maximum of 200000 units (worked example: 200000 / 1,000,000 = 20%) on 84 of the 513 live vaults enumerated from that factory on the three chains. A depositor in one of those pays about 21% of swap fees (worked example: 1% protocol + 20% manager), not 2-5%.Charm Alpha Vaults — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDCharm Alpha Vaults — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Polygon, Berachain, Katana
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Charm Alpha Vaults: 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 80, #1 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:charm_alpha_vaults:2026.10.18:d0bc585ae0ff
Are you Charm Alpha Vaults? 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.