Provider at a glance
- Category
- Web3 Apps
- Entity
- All 5 Jupiter products
- Official website
- jup.ag
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 59 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Jupiter
Swap routing app on Solana
Web3 Apps
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 10 Web3 apps in the published ranking
59
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $12 your cost/yr
Is Jupiter right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Ecosystem fit9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Use-case fit8/10 here; Lido scores 9
- Confidence signal6/10 here; Lido scores 8
- Operating style5/10 here; ENS (Ethereum Name Service) scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global. Restricted: United States, Singapore.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best Web3 app shows where it lands for you.
What will Jupiter cost you?
$12 your cost/yr
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Swap spread
- 0.1%
$18 below the median of 6 priced Web3 apps.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Jupiter?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Jupiter
Compare all 4- 4ENS (Ethereum Name Service)6 points above · stronger on operating style (8 against 5)65
- 5Lido5 points above · stronger on confidence (8 against 6)64
- 7Raydium4 points below · weaker on job fit (6 against 8)55$30
For your setup
Find out if Jupiter fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Jupiter 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 Web3 appNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Jupiter 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 (22.7 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
308+7.688.010#5/10Loading evidence…
249+6.917.510#2/10Loading evidence…
225+3.525.59#6/10Loading evidence…
246+4.617.09#7/10Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Lido, #5
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 58–62 and stays #6
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 Jupiter’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.
Confidence signal 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Lido+364#6 → #5
Operating style 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Lido+465#6 → #5
Use-case fit 8 → 5 on its ladder · Raydium passes it−354#6 → #7
Ecosystem fit 9 → 5 on its ladder · Raydium passes it−453#6 → #7
Operating style 5 → 1 on its ladder · Raydium passes it−454#6 → #7
Smallest climb: confidence signal 6 → 9 passes Lido, #5.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Ecosystem fit — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Use-case fit — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Confidence signal — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Operating style — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
- Not the broadest mainstream DeFi default across ecosystems
Competitive position
Where Jupiter 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 / 1020.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#4 / 1017.0 of 30 · best 22.4
Friction#6 / 102.7 of 10 · best 6.7
Trust record#8 / 103.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 106.9 of 18 · constant here
Where Jupiter leads
- Ecosystem fit#2 / 10
Where it trails
- Confidence signal#7 / 10
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.
Raydium#7 of 10 · score 55 · 4.0 points behind
Jupiter leads on
- Use-case fit8 vs 6
- Operating style5 vs 4
Raydium leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Jupiter is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Raydium is +$18 against Jupiter.
Lido#5 of 10 · score 64 · 5.0 points ahead
Jupiter leads on
- Ecosystem fit9 vs 7
Lido leads on
- Use-case fit9 vs 8
- Operating style7 vs 5
- Confidence signal8 vs 6
Largest single reason Lido is ahead: trust record (+8.3 display points).Scenario cost: Lido has no verified pricing for this scenario.
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)#4 of 10 · score 65 · 6.0 points ahead
Jupiter leads on
- Ecosystem fit9 vs 7
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads on
- Operating style8 vs 5
- Confidence signal7 vs 6
Largest single reason ENS (Ethereum Name Service) is ahead: friction (+10.4 display points).Scenario cost: ENS (Ethereum Name Service) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
87 vs 59 · gap 28.0Why Uniswap ranks above Jupiter
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 28.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisUniswapGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.022.4−14.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.74.7−5.2, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.26.4−8.3, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here6.96.9same
Published criterionThisUniswapPoints
Use-case fit · w30810−1.92, worse
Ecosystem fit · w24910−0.77, worse
Operating style · w2258−2.11, worse
Confidence signal · w2469−2.30, worse
Net5987−28.0
Your scenario
What Jupiter costs on your scenario
Swap spread 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
$1k a month × 12 months × 0.1% swap spread = $12 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Swap spread · published rate0.1%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 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.
$12
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$306 of 10 rows priced · Jupiter −$18 vs median
Cheapest priced$2.40 · Curve FinanceJupiter costs +$9.60 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Curve Finance
3 of 10 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
1 of 10 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 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 #6 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 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Use-case fitstrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Ecosystem fitstrength 9 · weight 24Report an error—30 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.Operating stylestrength 5 · weight 22Report an error—30 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.Confidence signalstrength 6 · weight 24Report an error—30 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
None of this ranking's criteria scores a way of losing money; the families that apply are listed below as not assessed.
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, 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: Use-case fit (30%), Ecosystem fit (24%), Operating style (22%), Confidence signal (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Jupiter Spot routes swaps through Ultra Mode by default ("By default, Spot uses Jupiter Ultra to execute trades."), and Ultra charges a Jupiter commission: the Jupiter Spot Fees page (docs.jup.ag, fetched 30 September 2026) lists "Ultra Mode 0-0.5%", varying by pair and volatility. The Ultra Mode page (same date) tables it: "0%" on stable-to-stable, LST-to-LST and SOL/stable into JUP, JLP or jupSOL; "SOL ↔ Stable 0.02%"; LST to stable "0.05%"; "All other swaps 0.1%"; and "0.5%" for buying or selling tokens within 24h of launch. Manual Mode (Market Swap) is "0%": "Manual swaps do not incur any Jupiter commission". Fees are included in the quote shown before confirming. Solana network fees (not charged by Jupiter) apply, plus Jito tips if chosen in Manual Mode; gasless trades add the SOL gas Jupiter pays to the swap fee, with no margin. Swaps inside the Jupiter Mobile app follow a separate schedule.Jupiter — official page at docs.jup.ag ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDJupiter — official page at docs.jup.ag ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global Solana users
- Restricted markets
- United States, Singapore
- Operating limits
- Practical fit is heavily Solana-specific; verify wallet, route, and ecosystem alignment before defaulting to it.
- Availability note
- Jupiter's Terms of Use (docs.jup.ag/user-docs/legal/terms-of-use, read 30 September 2026) state: "Jupiter does not interact with digital wallets located in, established in, or a resident of the United States, the Republic of China, Singapore," followed by Myanmar, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Crimea and Sevastopol, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe and any region under US, UK or EU sanctions; using a VPN to get around the prohibition is barred. Relevance is also narrow outside Solana-native activity.
Legal entity on file: Jupiter, placed in 5 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Jupiter: 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
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 59, #6 of 10. 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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt web3_apps:jupiter:2026.10.18:efa2f17844c7
Are you Jupiter? 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 Jupiter , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.