Provider at a glance
- Category
- Token Approval & Revoke Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- de.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 50 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
De.Fi Shield
Approval scanner with risk scores
Token Approval & Revoke Tools
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 token approval & revoke tools in the published ranking
50
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is De.Fi Shield right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Data freshness & verifiability4/10 here; the category best is 8
- Chain coverage and whether it is current2/10 here; MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals scores 3
- Trust surface and access model4/10 here; MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals scores 5
- Maintenance and funding durability4/10 here; MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals scores 7
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 revoke tool shows where it lands for you.
What will De.Fi Shield cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is De.Fi Shield?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to De.Fi Shield
Compare all 4- 4MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals6 points above · stronger on maintenance funding durability (7 against 4)56
- 6Unrekt (Smart Contract Allowance Checker)9 points below · weaker on data freshness verifiability (2 against 4)41
- 7Approved.zone9 points below · weaker on data freshness verifiability (1 against 4)41
For your setup
Find out if De.Fi Shield fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where De.Fi Shield 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 revoke toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why De.Fi Shield ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (11.2 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
354+4.484.08#4/7Loading evidence…
252+1.603.09#5/7Loading evidence…
254+3.205.09#5/7Loading evidence…
154+1.927.09#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−6behind MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals, #4
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 48–52 and stays #5
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 De.Fi Shield’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.
Data freshness & verifiability 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals+356#5 → #4
Chain coverage and whether it is current 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals+456#5 → #4
Trust surface and access model 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals+456#5 → #4
Smallest climb: data freshness & verifiability 4 → 7 passes MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals, #4.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Data freshness & verifiability — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Chain coverage and whether it is current — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Trust surface and access model — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Maintenance and funding durability — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Shield's approval coverage has contracted: read on 15 September 2026, the live page lists Ethereum and Solana and the chain API it calls enables Shield on Ethereum only, against the 12 EVM chains of De.Fi's December 2023 post and the 40+ chains of its 1 December 2025 post. The app host that De.Fi's own support material historically referenced — app.de.fi — no longer resolves in DNS. Check approvals granted on any other chain with a different tool.
- The quoted sentence names 3 chains plus '9 other popular EVM chains' = 12, and the post itself frames the total as 12 popular EVM chains. Every instance of '13 chains' must become 12 — and see the next finding, because 12 is itself a superseded 2023 figure.
- De.Fi restated Shield's coverage in a dated post on 1 December 2025, verbatim: 'De.Fi Shield provides a comprehensive security layer that scans wallets across 40+ chains, evaluates their exposure, and consolidates all active approvals into a single, easy-to-read dashboard.' The chain figure has more than tripled since the 2023 post the research treated as current. Read again 15 September 2026: the live Shield page lists Ethereum and Solana and the chain API it calls enables Shield on Ethereum only, so the 40+ figure no longer describes the scan either; chain coverage moved from 4 to 2.
Competitive position
Where De.Fi Shield 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#5 / 78.4 of 30 · best 20.4
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 De.Fi Shield leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Chain coverage and whether it is current#5 / 7
- Trust surface and access model#5 / 7
- Maintenance and funding durability#5 / 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.
MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals#4 of 7 · score 56 · 6.0 points ahead
De.Fi Shield leads onNo scored criterion
MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals leads on
- Chain coverage and whether it is current3 vs 2
- Trust surface and access model5 vs 4
- Maintenance and funding durability7 vs 4
Largest single reason MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals is ahead: published criteria (+6.0 display points).Scenario cost: MetaMask Portfolio — Token Approvals has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Unrekt (Smart Contract Allowance Checker)#6 of 7 · score 41 · 9.0 points behind
De.Fi Shield leads on
- Data freshness & verifiability4 vs 2
- Trust surface and access model4 vs 2
- Maintenance and funding durability4 vs 2
Unrekt (Smart Contract Allowance Checker) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason De.Fi Shield is ahead: published criteria (+9.4 display points).Scenario cost: Unrekt (Smart Contract Allowance Checker) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Approved.zone#7 of 7 · score 41 · 9.0 points behind
De.Fi Shield leads on
- Data freshness & verifiability4 vs 1
- Chain coverage and whether it is current2 vs 1
- Trust surface and access model4 vs 2
Approved.zone leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason De.Fi Shield is ahead: published criteria (+13.0 display points).Scenario cost: Approved.zone has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 50 · gap 31.0Why Revoke.cash ranks above De.Fi Shield
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 31.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRevoke.cashGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.420.4−31.2, 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 criterionThisRevoke.cashPoints
Data freshness & verifiability · w3548−4.48, worse
Chain coverage and whether it is current · w2529−5.60, worse
Trust surface and access model · w2549−4.00, worse
Maintenance and funding durability · w1548−1.92, worse
Net5081−31.0
Your scenario
De.Fi Shield is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. 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
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 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
No evidence reading date recorded
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 #5 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Data freshness & verifiabilitystrength 4 · weight 35Report an error——
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.Chain coverage and whether it is currentstrength 2 · weight 25Report an error——
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.Trust surface and access modelstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error——
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.Maintenance and funding durabilitystrength 4 · weight 15Report an error——
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
- Custody failure (De.Fi Shield 4/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Trust surface and access model · 25%
- Exit failure (De.Fi Shield 4/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Maintenance and funding durability · 15%
- Information failure (De.Fi Shield 4/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Data freshness & verifiability · 35%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Chain coverage and whether it is current (25%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No price is shown on the Shield tool: de.fi/shield (rendered 15 September 2026) carries no fee, plan or subscription text, asks users to "connect your Metamask or other web3-enabled wallets to the app above to check", and lists its revoke networks as "Ethereum" and "Solana". The "free scan of approvals across Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Polygon, and 9 other popular EVM chains" in De.Fi's 10 December 2023 post is superseded. Programmatic access is paid: docs.de.fi/api/api states "In order to make queries with your API key, you must purchase credits", with shieldApprovals costing 10 credits per call.De.Fi Shield — Shield tool page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDDe.Fi Shield — Shield tool page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- 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 De.Fi Shield: 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
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 50, #5 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 revoke_tools:de_fi_shield_revoke:2026.10.18:6bd3b7f506ae
Are you De.Fi Shield? 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.