ChainChoice verdict

Keep3r Network

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#5 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 15 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 65 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 Keep3r Network 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 (15.8 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

2+1.796.08#7/7Primary

9+8.644.09#1/7Primary

4+3.076.07#5/7Primary

4+2.306.09#7/7Primary

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

Margin−2behind DeFi Saver Automation, #4

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 63–66 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 Keep3r Network’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 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes DeFi Saver Automation+268#5 → #4

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes DeFi Saver Automation+268#5 → #4

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes DeFi Saver Automation+368#5 → #4

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 2 → 0 on its ladder · Mimic Protocol passes it−261#5 → #6

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 9 → 7 on its ladder · Mimic Protocol passes it−261#5 → #6

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 4 → 2 on its ladder · Mimic Protocol passes it−262#5 → #6

Smallest climb: what can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 2 → 4 passes DeFi Saver Automation, #4.

Strengths

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published — 9/10
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 4/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

3 from the score data

Record watch-outs

Four things a ranking must not smooth over, all re-verified onchain 2026-08-14. (1) The network is live but singular: 527 executions in 30 days, every one of them on a single job (YearnFactoryHarvestV1, 0xf4F748D45E03a70a9473394B28c3C7b5572DfA82), while the registry's jobs() getter reports 42 registered jobs on Ethereum. The five observed keepers are demonstrably willing to serve that one job; nothing establishes they would serve a new one, and the published decline condition — 'what transactions they deem profitable' — is exactly why they might not. A buyer registering a fresh job is buying a marketplace, not a service, and must make it worth someone's while. (2) Two signatures can move the parameters your reward depends on. The docs publish no governance identity anywhere across all 41 pages ('multisig' and 'Safe' return zero hits), but the registry's own governance() getter returns 0x0d5dc686d0a2abbfdafdfb4d0533e886517d4e83, which is a Gnosis Safe proxy (VERSION() decodes to '1.4.1') with six owners and getThreshold() = 2. Per https://docs.keep3r.network/roles/governance that role can set the fee, the bond time, the approved liquidities, force-mint credits and — materially — swap the Keep3rHelper address, which is where minBoost/maxBoost live. (3) The self-rescue path is structurally sound but operationally decayed: the CLI the docs call 'all the necessary code required to run your own keeper' was last pushed 2022-01-03 and still defaults to the V1 contract; the boilerplate the onboarding rules require (defi-wonderland/keep3r-cli-job-boilerplate) is HTTP 404; the keeper script for the only live job (defi-wonderland/yearn-keeper-scripts) is HTTP 404; the job registry the docs send you to is archived and self-declared deprecated. Self-rescue means writing your own executor, not installing theirs. (4) Chain coverage is real as deployment and hollow as activity. Ethereum is confirmed by 527 events. Optimism's Keep3r V2 at 0x745a50320B6eB8FF281f1664Fc6713991661B129 holds 24,374 bytes of code and its jobs() getter returns 3 registered jobs, but a complete 30-day scan (blocks 154,262,412–155,558,412, 2026-07-15T13:53:21Z to 2026-08-14T13:53:21Z) returned ZERO registry log entries of any kind. Polygon's V2 at the same address holds 24,454 bytes and 2 registered jobs; only the most recent 89,100 blocks (91,918,007–92,007,107, roughly 2.2 days) were readable — zero registry events there, and every public endpoint tried had pruned the older history, so Polygon beyond that is INCONCLUSIVE, not negative. Sepolia and OP Sepolia are also configured in the frontend and are testnets, so they are excluded.

Competitive position

Where Keep3r Network 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#5 / 711.9 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 Keep3r Network leads

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#1 / 7

Where it trails

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#7 / 7
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet#5 / 7
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute#7 / 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

DeFi Saver Automation#4 of 7 · score 67 · 2.0 points ahead

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

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

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

Compare View verdict

Mimic Protocol#6 of 7 · score 63 · 2.0 points behind

Keep3r Network leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published9 vs 3

Mimic Protocol leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6 vs 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute6 vs 4

Largest single reason Keep3r Network is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Mimic Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Reactive Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · 4.0 points ahead

Keep3r Network leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published9 vs 2

Reactive Network leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 2
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 4
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute6 vs 4

Largest single reason Reactive Network is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Reactive Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Keep3r Network

80 vs 65 · gap 15.0

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 15.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight11.917.8−15.3

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 · w2828−5.38

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3098+0.96

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · w2447−2.30

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1846−1.15

Net6580−15.0

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if Keep3r Network fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Keep3r Network 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

Keep3r Network 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 2 · weight 28Report an errordocs.keep3r.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 9 · weight 30Report an errordocs.keep3r.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 4 · weight 24Report an errordocs.keep3r.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 4 · weight 18Report an errordocs.keep3r.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

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

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: No pricing page exists on either vendor domain (https://docs.keep3r.network/pricing HTTP 404 and https://keep3r.network/pricing HTTP 404, both re-checked 2026-08-14). What the docs DO say about what a job pays, verbatim from https://docs.keep3r.network/core/jobs: "The above will make sure the caller is a registered keeper as well as reward them with an amount of KP3R equal to their gas spent + premium. Make sure to have enough credits assigned in the Keep3r system for the relevant job." The word 'premium' appears exactly once across all 41 documentation pages and is never given a number. Read onchain 2026-08-14 from the helper the live V2 registry actually points at (registry.keep3rHelper() = 0xedde080e28eb53532bd1804de51bd9cd5cadf0d4): minBoost() = 11000, maxBoost() = 12000, BOOST_BASE() = 10000, targetBond() = 200e18, workExtraGas() = 50000 — i.e. 110%–120% of gas spent, paid in KP3R, scaling with the keeper's bonded KP3R up to 200 KP3R. Separately, https://docs.keep3r.network/roles/governance documents a heading "### **Fee**" over "function setFee(uint256 _fee) external;"; the live registry's fee() returns 30 against "uint256 internal constant _BASE = 10_000;" in solidity/contracts/peripherals/Keep3rParameters.sol, i.e. 0.3%, and the interface docstring at solidity/interfaces/peripherals/IKeep3rParameters.sol reads "/// @notice The fee to be sent to governance when a user adds liquidity to a job". Recorded as disclosure only; not ranked.Keep3r Network — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDKeep3r Network — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: ethereum, optimism, polygon
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Re-verified 2026-08-14: no geographic restriction is published anywhere on the product. The strings 'jurisdic', 'restrict', 'prohibit', 'OFAC', 'sanction', 'United States', 'KYC' and 'resident' each return zero hits across all 41 documentation pages enumerated at https://docs.keep3r.network/llms.txt, and no terms, legal or privacy page exists to carry one — https://keep3r.network/terms, https://keep3r.network/legal, https://keep3r.network/privacy and https://docs.keep3r.network/terms all return HTTP 404. Access is by direct contract call on Ethereum mainnet (addJob and bond are both permissionless), with no account, no signup and no vendor-side gate, so availability is a function of RPC access rather than of the vendor. Practical caveats that are not geography: participation requires KP3R or an approved kLP liquidity position to fund a job, and the sole hosted UI at keep3r.network carries the footer 'This project is in beta. Use at your own risk.'

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 65, #5 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:keep3r: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.