Provider at a glance
- Category
- Lending & Borrowing
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- compound.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 74 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Compound
Onchain money market
Lending & Borrowing
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 8 lending & borrowing in the published ranking
74
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Compound right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Who sets your rate9/10; the category best is 10
- Loss record published8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Liquidation price6/10 here; Euler V2 scores 7
- Contagion between markets7/10 here; Euler V2 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 crypto lending platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Compound cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Amount borrowed
- $10k
How safe is Compound?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Compound
Compare all 4- 4Euler V23 points above · stronger on contagion between markets (9 against 7)77
- 5Kamino LendLevel on score · stronger on contagion between markets (9 against 7)74
- 7Fluid (Instadapp)1 point below · stronger on contagion between markets (8 against 7)73
For your setup
Find out if Compound fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Compound 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 crypto lending platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Compound ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.6 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
326+6.146.59#5/8Loading evidence…
249+6.919.010#2/8Loading evidence…
247+5.388.09#6/8Loading evidence…
208+5.127.09#2/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Kamino Lend, #5
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–76 and ranks #5–#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 Compound’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.
What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Kamino Lend+176#6 → #5
Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Kamino Lend+175#6 → #5
If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Kamino Lend+175#6 → #5
Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Kamino Lend+175#6 → #5
What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? 6 → 5 on its ladder · Fluid (Instadapp) passes it−172#6 → #7
Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? 9 → 8 on its ladder · Fluid (Instadapp) passes it−172#6 → #7
If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? 7 → 6 on its ladder · Fluid (Instadapp) passes it−172#6 → #7
Smallest climb: “What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift?” 6 → 7 passes Kamino Lend, #5.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? — 9/10, category best 10/10
- Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Compound now has one of the cleanest RATE disclosures in this pool and one of the thinnest ORACLE disclosures, and a buyer who conflates the two will misprice it. Four specific traps. First, the page that tells you what liquidates you — https://docs.compound.finance/liquidation/ — never names an oracle at all ("This function uses the price returned by the protocol’s price feed"); Chainlink is named two clicks away on the helper-functions page, and a machine check of all nine Compound doc pages returns zero occurrences of deviation, heartbeat, staleness, median, fallback, killswitch or price bound. The one bounded feed Compound ever ran — the multisig-settable min/max and constant-price override added to rsETH after the 18 April 2026 Kelp bridge exploit — was REVERTED in May 2026 via Proposal 586, so as of today no Compound market carries a numeric price bound. Second, the docs registry is a snapshot, not live state: stamped 2026-02-28, it still advertises rsETH on the Ethereum USDC Comet at 85% borrow CF and a 1,500-token supply cap when the on-chain cap has since been set to 0, and it still lists ten mainnet networks when six of them — Polygon, Unichain, Linea, Mantle, Ronin and Scroll — are approved for deprecation with supply caps zeroed, collateral factors halved and supply rates being set to 0%. Read the Comet and the forum, not the docs table. Third, the one-week governance timelock that makes Compound's rate authorship trustworthy does NOT cover the emergency path: the Community Multi-Sig pause guardian can freeze withdrawals instantly (it did so across six networks in April 2026), and a 0% collateral factor mechanically locks collateral until debt is fully repaid — both disclosed on the forum, neither in the docs. Fourth, the named backstop is real but shrinking and undocumented at the tail: reserves on the Ethereum WETH Comet fell from 921.22 to 908.46 WETH between 10 May and 5 August 2026 because the comet "retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization", no Compound page says what happens once reserves are exhausted, and Compound discloses its losses well on comp.xyz and not at all on either page titled Security.
Competitive position
Where Compound 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#6 / 817.7 of 30 · best 20.4
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 Compound leads
- Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator?#2 / 8
- Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it?#2 / 8
Where it trails
- If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it?#6 / 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.
Kamino Lend#5 of 8 · score 74 · same score
Compound leads on
- Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator?9 vs 8
- Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it?8 vs 7
Kamino Lend leads on
- If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it?9 vs 7
Largest single reason Kamino Lend is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Kamino Lend has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fluid (Instadapp)#7 of 8 · score 73 · 1.0 point behind
Compound leads on
- Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator?9 vs 8
- Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it?8 vs 7
Fluid (Instadapp) leads on
- If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it?8 vs 7
Largest single reason Compound is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Fluid (Instadapp) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Euler V2#4 of 8 · score 77 · 3.0 points ahead
Compound leads on
- Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator?9 vs 8
Euler V2 leads on
- What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift?7 vs 6
- If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it?9 vs 7
Largest single reason Euler V2 is ahead: published criteria (+3.4 display points).Scenario cost: Euler V2 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 74 · gap 7.0Why Venus ranks above Compound
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 7.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisVenusGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.720.4−7.0, 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 criterionThisVenusPoints
What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? · w3269−3.07, worse
Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? · w2089−0.64, worse
Net7481−7.0
Your scenario
Compound is not priced for this scenario
Interest on what you borrow at the published rate. Variable rates move; excludes origination and liquidation penalties. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
interest/yr · default scenario — set your own
Amount borrowed · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
interest/yrCost is stated as interest/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 and cheapestNot statedOnly 1 of 8 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
7 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 #5 to #7 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
What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift?strength 6 · weight 32Report 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.Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator?strength 9 · weight 24Report 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.If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it?strength 7 · weight 24Report 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.Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it?strength 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
- Control failure (Compound 9/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? · 24%
- Oracle failure (Compound 6/10): a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.Scored by What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? · 32%
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? · 24% (Compound 7/10)Scored by Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? · 20% (Compound 8/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Compound III charges no subscription, listing or curator fee; the protocol's take is the spread between separate supply and borrow curves that governance sets. The Interest Rates page (https://
docs .compound .finance /interest-rates /, fetched 28 September 2026): "Users with a positive balance of the base asset earn interest, denominated in the base asset, based on a supply rate model; users with a negative balance pay interest based on a borrow rate model. These are separate interest rate models, and set by governance." Compound publishes the size of that spread only per proposal on its forum. For the Ethereum WETH Comet, Gauntlet's 5 August 2026 post (https:// www .comp .xyz /t /ethereum-weth-comet-borrow-rate-irm-updates /7999, fetched 28 September 2026) states "Compound v3 has no reserve factor parameter" and prints the implied reserve factor as "0.00%" at the kink and "10.00%" at full utilisation, adding "The comet currently retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization." Comets being wound down are repriced by the same route: a 2 September 2026 forum proposal sets the Ethereum wstETH Comet's supply rate to zero ahead of deprecation. Live per-market APYs are on-chain only, so no APY is quoted.Compound — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDCompound — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Unichain, Linea, Scroll, Mantle, Ronin
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Compound III is a permissionless onchain protocol: the docs describe no allowlist, KYC step or jurisdictional gate, and any address may call supply/withdraw on a Comet proxy (https://
docs .compound .finance /collateral-and-borrowing /). Whether the compound.finance front end restricts jurisdictions could not be verified: re-tested 17 August 2026, https:// compound .finance /terms, /prohibited and /legal each return HTTP 200 and serve the identical 1,627-byte JavaScript shell (all three with last-modified Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:44:10 GMT), and a grep of the landing bundle for jurisdiction, prohibited, restricted, OFAC and sanction returns zero hits. That is INCONCLUSIVE, not evidence that no restriction exists. Chain coverage is a filter, not a region claim: 33 deployments across 10 mainnet networks plus Ethereum Sepolia, Polygon Mumbai and Base Sepolia testnets, per the deployment registry on https:// docs .compound .finance / — but see deprecationInProgress in structuralFacts before treating all ten as going concerns.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Compound: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 74, #6 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 11 October 2026
2026.10.9No live feed or market rate moves a score- fixed Lending and borrowing: the borrow rate leaves the fee term, which now scores every protocol alike, so the category ranks on its four published criteria. Venus, first on those criteria, moves from #7 to #1; Spark stays #2; Morpho moves from #1 to #3 and Compound from #8 to #6.
- fixed Exchanges: the fee term reads each exchange's taker fee from the catalog instead of a table dated 1 April. Kraken (0.80 %) moves from #6 to #9 and Gemini (1.20 %) from #10 to #11; Coinbase, Luno, Bitvavo and VALR each move up one place, and Bybit stays #1.
- removed Staking: a yield no longer stands in for a staking provider's missing commission. No published score moves.
- added /methodology/live-data publishes which numbers may move a score; on every build a test fills each live feed with extreme values and fails if a single score moves.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt lending_borrowing:compound:2026.10.18:57a5bb9ffe4f
Are you Compound? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Compound , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.