Provider at a glance
- Category
- Intent Networks
- Official website
- cow.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
CoW Protocol
Batch-auction intent settlement
Intent Networks
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 intent networks in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is CoW Protocol right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Bid set visibility10/10, the category best
- Network fee disclosure8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Fallback when nobody fills7/10 here; Across Protocol scores 9
- Solver admission7/10 here; UniswapX scores 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 intent network shows where it lands for you.
What will CoW Protocol cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is CoW Protocol?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to CoW Protocol
Compare all 4- 2UniswapX13 points below · stronger on nofill fallback (8 against 7)68
- 3Across Protocol14 points below · stronger on nofill fallback (9 against 7)67
- 4NEAR Intents16 points below · weaker on bid visibility (6 against 10)65
For your setup
Find out if CoW Protocol fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where CoW Protocol 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 intent networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why CoW Protocol 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 (26.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
3410+10.884.010#1/7Loading evidence…
207+4.487.09#3/7Loading evidence…
228+5.638.08#1/7Loading evidence…
247+5.386.09#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+13over UniswapX, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81 and stays #1
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 CoW Protocol’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.
Bid set visibility 10 → 3 on its ladder · UniswapX passes it−777#1 → #3
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Bid set visibility — 10/10, the category best
- Network fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Fallback when nobody fills — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Solver admission — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The transparency is real but the competition behind it is uneven. Across auction ids 13537943 to 13537952 on 2026-08-08, the six that resolved returned 2, 15, 17, 13, 14 and 14 solutions. Auction 13537943 drew two bids from two distinct solvers. A buyer landing in a thin auction still gets a published, auditable record; what the record shows is that on that batch the network was a duopoly. Separately, the rewards page (docs.cow.fi/cow-protocol/reference/core/auctions/rewards) sets the solver reward on "Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum, and Base chain" at a 50% fraction of the protocol fee with a downside cap of "0.010 ETH", so solver participation is economically rationed and cannot be assumed constant across pairs.
Competitive position
Where CoW Protocol 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#1 / 719.8 of 30 · pool best
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 CoW Protocol leads
- Bid set visibility#1 / 7
- Solver admission#3 / 7
- Network fee disclosure#1 / 7
- Fallback when nobody fills#3 / 7
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.
UniswapX#2 of 7 · score 68 · 13.0 points behind
CoW Protocol leads on
- Bid set visibility10 vs 4
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 6
UniswapX leads on
- Solver admission8 vs 7
- Fallback when nobody fills8 vs 7
Largest single reason CoW Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+12.7 display points).Scenario cost: UniswapX has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Across Protocol#3 of 7 · score 67 · 14.0 points behind
CoW Protocol leads on
- Bid set visibility10 vs 4
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 5
Across Protocol leads on
- Fallback when nobody fills9 vs 7
Largest single reason CoW Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+14.0 display points).Scenario cost: Across Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
NEAR Intents#4 of 7 · score 65 · 16.0 points behind
CoW Protocol leads on
- Bid set visibility10 vs 6
- Solver admission7 vs 2
- Fallback when nobody fills7 vs 6
NEAR Intents leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason CoW Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+16.4 display points).Scenario cost: NEAR Intents has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against #2
81 vs 68 · gap 13.0Why CoW Protocol ranks above UniswapX
DimensionThisUniswapXGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.814.9+12.7, 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 criterionThisUniswapXPoints
Bid set visibility · w34104+6.53, better
Solver admission · w2078−0.64, worse
Network fee disclosure · w2286+1.41, better
Fallback when nobody fills · w2478−0.77, worse
Net8168+13.0
Your scenario
CoW Protocol is not priced for this scenario
Transfer fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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 · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone 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 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Bid set visibilitystrength 10 · weight 34Report 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.Solver admissionstrength 7 · 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.Network fee disclosurestrength 8 · weight 22Report 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.Fallback when nobody fillsstrength 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.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Bid set visibility · 34% (CoW Protocol 10/10)Scored by Solver admission · 20% (CoW Protocol 7/10)Scored by Fallback when nobody fills · 24% (CoW Protocol 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory 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: Network fee disclosure (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- docs.cow.fi/governance/fees, fetched 28 September 2026, sets the protocol's take as a surplus component and a volume component: "50% of surplus on out-of-market limit orders, capped at 0.98% of the total volume of the order" and "50% of positive quote improvement on market orders (aka swaps), capped at 0.98% of the total volume of the order", plus a tiered volume fee of "2 basis points (bps)" on Standard Assets and "0.3 basis points (bps)" on "Correlated Assets (Stables/RWAs)", with the arithmetic spelled out as "Standard : Volume * 0.0002" and "Correlated: Volume * 0.00003". The page adds that "All protocol fees are charged in the surplus token, i.e. in the buy token for sell orders and the sell token for buy orders." and, in a section added since 8 August 2026, that "The computed fees of every trade, including partner fees, are exposed in the executedProtocolFees field of the trades API endpoint", with a worked example of a 1 ETH market order carrying a partner fee of 1% on top of the protocol fees.CoW Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDCoW Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Gnosis, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, BNB, Linea, Ink, Plasma
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: CoW Protocol, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with CoW Protocol: 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 81, #1 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 intents:cow_protocol:2026.10.18:dc470144c3be
Are you CoW Protocol? 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.