ChainChoice verdict

KeeperHub

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#2 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 11 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 69 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 KeeperHub ranks #2

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.2 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

6+5.386.08#3/7Primary

6+5.764.09#3/7Third party

4+3.076.07#5/7Primary

7+4.036.09#3/7Primary

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

Margin−11behind TukTuk (Helium), #1

RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–71 and ranks #2–#3

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 KeeperHub’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 6 → 5 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−168#2 → #3

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 6 → 5 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−168#2 → #3

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 4 → 3 on its ladder · Reactive Network passes it−168#2 → #3

Strengths

Where it leads

1 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 — 7/10
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 6/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

4 from the score data

Record watch-outs

READ THIS FIRST: the SLA is the one thing KeeperHub sells that its rivals mostly do not, and it does not survive contact with the vendor's own pages. It is "—" on both tiers below $299/mo (keeperhub.com/pricing), so most buyers purchase no bound at all; where it exists at 99.9%, KeeperHub's own status page showed Workflow Scheduler and Workflow Engine at 99.54% over the trailing 90 days when read on 2026-08-14, with eighteen incidents of impact "major" all titled "Workflow execution degraded" in the published feed; and docs.keeperhub.com/guides/gelato-migration simultaneously advertises "**Uptime guarantee** | 100% uptime track record (7+ years)", a figure belonging to the team's prior work (keeperhub.com/enterprise: "Same team that has run Web3 automation infrastructure for 7+ years") and not to a product whose status history begins 2026-04-08. Behind all of it there is NO terms of service at any URL — /terms, /terms-of-service, /tos, /legal and /terms-and-conditions are all 404 — so the SLA percentage has no published contract underneath it, and the product still self-labels BETA in its own navigation. Three further corrections carried forward from re-verification. (1) The pool brief overcounts triggers: it lists six including "Transfer", but "Transfer Funds" is an Action node, and three vendor pages agree on five (docs.keeperhub.com/keepers/overview, /concepts and llms.txt: "a **trigger** (Manual, Schedule, Webhook, Event, Block)"). Scored as five. (2) The pool brief's retry quote — "When a step fails, KeeperHub retries with configurable behavior. Failed runs are logged with full error context." — appears on no KeeperHub page; grepping all 172 documentation source files returns zero hits for "retries with configurable" or "full error context". What the vendor actually publishes is "Failed steps are retried with exponential backoff" (FAQ) and "up to 10 attempts" (gelato-migration guide); retry is nowhere documented as configurable. (3) The open-source claim is not self-consistent: keeperhub.com says "Fully open source", the README says "Apache 2.0", the LICENSE file carries the Apache-2.0 grant under an unedited "Copyright 2025 Vercel, Inc." line (hence GitHub's NOASSERTION), and the vendor's own migration guide calls it "License | Commercial (open-source core)". The self-rescue path is nonetheless more real than the draft allowed — the repo publishes KeeperHub's actual production Kubernetes values, RBAC and NetworkPolicies — but the Helm chart those values render against is not in the repo and every image points at a private ECR, so standing the crank back up means rebuilding from the Dockerfile, not running what is published.

Competitive position

Where KeeperHub 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#2 / 713.7 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 KeeperHub leads

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#3 / 7
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#3 / 7
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute#3 / 7

Where it trails

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet#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.

Browse all 7

Reactive Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · same score

KeeperHub leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published6 vs 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute7 vs 6

Reactive Network leads on

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

Largest single reason KeeperHub is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Reactive Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

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

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

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

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

Compare View verdict

Keep3r Network#5 of 7 · score 65 · 4.0 points behind

KeeperHub 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 execute7 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 6

Largest single reason KeeperHub is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: Keep3r Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above KeeperHub

80 vs 69 · gap 11.0

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 11.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight13.717.8−10.7

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 · w2868−1.79

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3068−1.92

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 · w1876+0.58

Net6980−11.0

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if KeeperHub fits you

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

KeeperHub 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 stabilityCould fallone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness45 days agonewest read 14 Aug 2026 · current

Primary-source share75%3 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 6 · weight 28Report an errordocs.keeperhub.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 6 · weight 30Report an errorgithub.comThird-party page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

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

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 7 · weight 18Report an errorkeeperhub.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: Re-verified character-exact on keeperhub.com/pricing, 2026-08-14. Pay per execution — "$0.01" / "Free to start. No commitments." / Executions 5,000 / Gas credits $1. Pro — "$49 /mo", "$39/mo billed annually" / Executions 25,000 / Gas credits $5 / "$2/1K additional executions". Business — "$299 /mo", "$239/mo billed annually" / Executions 250,000 / Gas credits $25 / "$1.50/1K additional executions". Enterprise — "Custom" / "Custom everything" / "Custom overage terms". Comparison table rows, in the order printed: "Per extra execution | $0.01 | $0.0020 | $0.0015 | Custom"; "Sponsored gas | $1/mo | $5/mo +$4/mo | $25/mo +$24/mo | Custom"; "Chains | All EVM + Solana | All EVM + Solana | All EVM + Solana | All EVM + Solana"; "Triggers | Standard | Advanced | Advanced + Custom | Custom"; "Logs | 7 days | 30 days | 90 days | Custom"; "Support | Community | Email | Dedicated | Dedicated (1h)"; "SLA | — | — | 99.9% | 99.999%". Unit definition, character-exact: "One workflow run equals one execution, whether it reads a contract state or writes a transaction. All operations count the same way. Simple, predictable metering." Live paid-call price observed independently on 2026-08-14: an x402 v2 challenge from app.keeperhub.com/api/mcp/workflows/emporia-cbri-score/call quoting amount "10000" (0.01 USDC) on network "eip155:8453". Recorded as disclosure only; price is ranked in no criterion on this page.KeeperHub — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDKeeperHub — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum One, Optimism, Polygon, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Plasma, Tempo, 0G, Solana
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Re-checked 2026-08-14. No geographic restriction is stated on any KeeperHub page read. Self-serve signup at app.keeperhub.com with no country gate described; keeperhub.com/pricing states "Start with the free tier. No credit card, no commitments." The privacy policy at keeperhub.com/privacy ("Last updated March 2026") addresses both European and US users directly, with "10 GDPR Compliance / European Economic Area — EEA residents have additional rights under the GDPR" and a separate "11 CCPA Compliance / California" section — positive evidence of intended service on both sides of the Atlantic. IMPORTANT CAVEAT on the confidence of "global": there is no terms of service to restrict anything. keeperhub.com/terms, /terms-of-service, /tos, /legal and /terms-and-conditions all returned HTTP 404 on 2026-08-14, and the privacy policy is the only legal document published. So "unrestricted" rests on the absence of any published restriction rather than on an affirmative availability statement, and no sanctions, export-control or prohibited-jurisdiction clause exists anywhere to read. CONTACT DETAIL CORRECTED: the draft cited "sales@keeperhub.io" without a URL; that address is real but appears only once, in docs.keeperhub.com/llms.txt under "## Optional — [Contact](mailto:sales@keeperhub.io)". The addresses a buyer actually meets are human@keeperhub.com (site-wide footer and schema.org contactPoint on every keeperhub.com page) and support@keeperhub.com (privacy policy §08 and §14). Note the vendor operates both keeperhub.com and keeperhub.io — the CLI docs reference "staging.keeperhub.io". No corporate registration, registered office or operating entity is disclosed on any page read; the schema.org block gives only "foundingDate":"2025". None is asserted here.

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 69, #2 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:keeperhub: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.