ChainChoice verdict

DeFi Saver Automation

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#4 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 13 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 67 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.

Find my best

Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer

Why this rank

Why DeFi Saver Automation ranks #4

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 1 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100

CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence

4+3.586.08#6/7Primary

4+3.844.09#4/7Primary

6+4.616.07#4/7Primary

9+5.186.09#1/7Primary

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin−2behind Reactive Network, #3

RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–69 and ranks #3–#4

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 DeFi Saver Automation’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 can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Reactive Network+169#4 → #3

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Reactive Network+169#4 → #3

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Reactive Network+169#4 → #3

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 4 → 2 on its ladder · Keep3r Network passes it−264#4 → #5

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 4 → 2 on its ladder · Keep3r Network passes it−264#4 → #5

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 6 → 4 on its ladder · Keep3r Network passes it−264#4 → #5

Smallest climb: what can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 4 → 5 passes Reactive Network, #3.

Strengths

Where it leads

2 from the score data

Record says best for

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 9/10
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 6/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

2 from the score data

Record watch-outs

The real access constraint is economic, not geographic, and it disqualifies most readers: automation requires a minimum position size published per protocol and per chain - "Minimum $30,000 in debt for Aave v3 and Aave V4 on Mainnet", "Minimum of $40,000 in DAI for MakerDAO on Mainnet (ETH-B vault)", and for Liquity V1 both "Minimum $40,000 in debt" and "Minimum 3,000,000 Debt in front", against "Minimum $500 in debt for Aave v3 on Arbitrum, Optimism and Base" (https://help.defisaver.com/automations/requirements-for-using-automation.md, all re-verified character-exact 2026-08-14). Second, and worse than the floor itself: if your debt later falls to $5,000 or below on Ethereum, the subscription still reads active onchain and in the UI but "will not execute once its conditions are met", and no page describes any notice when you cross that line. Third, this is not a general-purpose scheduler and must not be compared as one - it cannot call an arbitrary address with arbitrary calldata, and every trigger and action must first be added to the DFSRegistry by the DeFi Saver multisig. Fourth, one multisig can stop every job: "Each contract can be killed (destroyed) by the Owner multisig, which effectively pauses any execution until further investigation is done" (https://docs.defisaver.com/protocol/security-and-audits/pause-control.md), with core contracts on a 7-day registry timelock and action contracts on 1 day, and Automation upgrades behind a 24h timelock activated by a 2/3 Admin multisig and initiated by a separate 3/5 Owner multisig (https://docs.defisaver.com/protocol/security-and-audits/admin-access-control.md).

Competitive position

Where DeFi Saver Automation 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 · pool best

Published criteria#4 / 712.9 of 30 · best 17.8

Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · pool best

Where DeFi Saver Automation leads

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute#1 / 7

Where it trails

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#6 / 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.

Browse all 7

Reactive Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · 2.0 points ahead

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published4 vs 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute9 vs 6

Reactive Network leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 6

Largest single reason Reactive Network is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Reactive Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Keep3r Network#5 of 7 · score 65 · 2.0 points behind

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true4 vs 2
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet6 vs 4
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute9 vs 4

Keep3r Network leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published9 vs 4

Largest single reason DeFi Saver Automation is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Keep3r Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

KeeperHub#2 of 7 · score 69 · 2.0 points ahead

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet6 vs 4
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute9 vs 7

KeeperHub leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6 vs 4
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published6 vs 4

Largest single reason KeeperHub is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: KeeperHub has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above DeFi Saver Automation

80 vs 67 · gap 13.0

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 13.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight12.917.8−12.7

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2848−3.58

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3048−3.84

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · w2467−0.77

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1896+1.73

Net6780−13.0

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if DeFi Saver Automation fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where DeFi Saver Automation 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.

3–5 questions
No account required
Ranking-blind: no commercial input
Personalised in under 60 seconds

Find my best automation & keeperNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.

Your scenario

DeFi Saver Automation 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

Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 Aug 2026.

your cost/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced

Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter

Cost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 14 Aug 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

Public receiptsAvailable4 quoted with a source URL

Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness

Rank stabilityHoldsone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness45 days agonewest read 14 Aug 2026 · current

Primary-source share100%4 of 4 sourced cells

Conflicts0file and table agree

The newest evidence read on the platform is 5 Sept 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 14 Aug 2026.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was truestrength 4 · weight 28Report an errordocs.defisaver.comProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 4 · weight 30Report an errordocs.defisaver.comProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 6 · weight 24Report an errorhelp.defisaver.comProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 9 · weight 18Report an errorhelp.defisaver.comProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: "Automations have a fee of 0.05% on each triggered automation transaction." | "Note that simply enabling and keeping any automated strategy enabled for your position does not involve any kind of one-time or on-going, continuous service fees." | "The transaction fee for each executed automated transaction will effectively be charged to the position, during transaction execution." | "This essentially means that the gas costs for the transaction will be charged to the position, not the user's wallet." | Swap-inclusive strategies additionally carry "0.25% on the swapped amount for swaps of assets that are not correlated in price (e.g. ETH --> USDC)", "0.1% on the swapped amount for swaps of assets that are correlated in price (e.g. ETH --> wstETH)", "0.01% on the swapped amount for swaps of stablecoin pairs (e.g. USDT --> USDC)". | A fourth cost the draft omitted and the buyer pays: "Automations use flash loans as part of the recipe for the transaction - DeFi Saver defaults to using free flash loan sources, but in case there's a lack of liquidity in free sources, it will use an Aave flash loan (which has a 0.09% fee)". All seven strings re-fetched and confirmed character-exact on https://help.defisaver.com/automations/fees.md on 2026-08-14 (verification pass). Recorded as disclosure only; price is ranked in no criterion on this page.DeFi Saver Automation — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDDeFi Saver Automation — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, base, linea, plasma
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: No geographic restriction is published on any page I could read, re-checked 2026-08-14. DeFi Saver Automation is a non-custodial dapp with no account, no signup and no KYC - the position stays in the user's own Safe or DSProxy and "our Automations have no interaction with the funds in your wallet" (https://help.defisaver.com/automations/are-there-risks-when-using-automation.md). https://help.defisaver.com/legal/terms-and-conditions.md was re-read in full this pass: it contains no restricted-country list, no US or EU carve-out and no eligibility clause. https://defisaver.com/ was fetched (452KB, real server-rendered content, "Non-custodial management platform for decentralized finance integrating 15+ protocols") and grepped for jurisdiction / eligibility / prohibited / OFAC / KYC / 'not available in' / 'residents of' - zero matches. Deployment is by chain, not by country: contracts are published for Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Linea and Plasma (https://docs.defisaver.com/protocol/deployed-contracts.md, which embeds exactly those six address files), and automation availability varies WITHIN them - "No automations available for Compound on Optimism", "No automations available for Aave on Linea and Plasma", "No automations available for the Compound USDS market on Base+", "No automations available for Fluid on Plasma" (all four re-verified character-exact on https://help.defisaver.com/automations/compatibility.md, 2026-08-14). The Notify alerting layer is narrower still: "The Notify feature is currently available on Ethereum Mainnet, Arbitrum, Base and Optimism." (https://help.defisaver.com/features/notify.md). CAVEAT ON THIS FINDING, confirmed rather than inherited: https://app.defisaver.com/terms-of-service returns HTTP 200 but is a 2,779-byte JavaScript shell with no readable legal text (I fetched it; the byte count matches the draft exactly, as does privacy-policy at 2,779 bytes), so the app's operative terms-of-service document could not be read. The 'global' bucket therefore rests on the help-centre terms page and the marketing site, not on that document.

No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.

7 methodology entries

14 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 67, #4 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
16 Sept 2026
2026.09.15
Dimension 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.
14 Sept 2026
2026.09.12
A tie is decided by the published criteria first
- changed Tie key: criteriaAverage (unrounded weighted average of the published criterion scores) now comes directly after the weighted total and before the generic factors, in the engine, in formula.tieBreakChain and in the note that describes it.
- changed Published order: 130 positions move in 46 categories and no score changes. Five published #1s change: wallet (MetaMask → Rabby Wallet), stablecoin_issuance (Anchorage Digital → Brale), options_vaults (SOFA.org → Typus Finance), flash_loans (Dai Flash Mint → Morpho) and tokenised_commodities (Kinesis Gold → Matrixdock Gold).
- fixed Personalised weights are no longer rounded to one decimal. Rounding each dimension weight separately changed the ratio between dimensions the reader had not touched (a trust priority turned objectiveFit and quantitative 30:18 into 27.4:16.5), so a stated priority could reorder rows on criteria nobody re-weighted. Published weights are whole numbers, so no published order or score changes from this.
- changed Personalised orders: replaying the golden answer suite against the fixtures committed with 2026.09.11, 1,002 of 2,217 cases change their order and 181 their #1 (21 of them country briefs), mostly where answers leave rows tied on whole points and the criteria now decide; 45 change their confidence label. The tie key changes no score; the unrounded weights can move a reader’s weighted total, and with it their Fit for you number, by a small amount.
10 Sept 2026
2026.09.5
The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
- changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
- changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
- fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.

Full methodology changelog

Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version: 2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot: Evidence read 14 Aug 2026
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(automation_keepers, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: automation_keepers:defi_saver_automation:2026.09.15:4e1a076952e2

What changed in this methodology version?

2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources

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.
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.
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.

How automation & keepers are weighted Changelog

Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.