Provider at a glance
- Category
- Yield Vaults
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- lagoon.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 64 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in November 2026.
Lagoon
Tokenised fund vaults
Yield Vaults
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 yield vaults in the published ranking
64
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Lagoon right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Mandate accountability4/10 here; Fluid Lite scores 7
- Exit mechanics under stress3/10 here; Fluid Lite scores 5
- Strategy risk honesty4/10 here; the category best is 7
- Fee transparency6/10 here; Fluid Lite scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Global. Restricted: United States.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto yield vault shows where it lands for you.
What will Lagoon cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Lagoon?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Lagoon
Compare all 4- 4Fluid Lite12 points above · stronger on mandate (7 against 4)76$320
- 6ether.fi Liquid2 points below · stronger on exit (4 against 3)62
- 7Upshift6 points below · weaker on mandate (3 against 4)58
For your setup
Find out if Lagoon fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Lagoon 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 crypto yield vaultNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Lagoon 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 (13.2 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
304+3.846.07#5/7Loading evidence…
263+2.505.06#6/7Loading evidence…
244+3.074.07#4/7Loading evidence…
206+3.847.08#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−12behind Fluid Lite, #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 Lagoon’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.
Mandate accountability 4 → 2 on its ladder · ether.fi Liquid passes it−261#5 → #6
Exit mechanics under stress 3 → 1 on its ladder · ether.fi Liquid passes it−261#5 → #6
Strategy risk honesty 4 → 2 on its ladder · ether.fi Liquid passes it−261#5 → #6
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
- Mandate accountability — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Exit mechanics under stress — 3/10 against a category best of 6/10
- Strategy risk honesty — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Fee transparency — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Asynchronous, request-based redemption — no guaranteed instant exit
- Manager quality varies per vault; the platform does not underwrite the strategy
- Fees exist only at the individual vault level
Competitive position
Where Lagoon 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 / 720.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 79.9 of 30 · best 16.7
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 Lagoon leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Mandate accountability#5 / 7
- Exit mechanics under stress#6 / 7
- Fee transparency#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.
ether.fi Liquid#6 of 7 · score 62 · 2.0 points behind
Lagoon leads on
- Mandate accountability4 vs 3
- Fee transparency6 vs 4
ether.fi Liquid leads on
- Exit mechanics under stress4 vs 3
Largest single reason Lagoon is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: ether.fi Liquid has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Upshift#7 of 7 · score 58 · 6.0 points behind
Lagoon leads on
- Mandate accountability4 vs 3
- Exit mechanics under stress3 vs 2
- Strategy risk honesty4 vs 3
Upshift leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Lagoon is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Upshift has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fluid Lite#4 of 7 · score 76 · 12.0 points ahead
Lagoon leads onNo scored criterion
Fluid Lite leads on
- Mandate accountability7 vs 4
- Exit mechanics under stress5 vs 3
- Fee transparency8 vs 6
Largest single reason Fluid Lite is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: Lagoon has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 64 · gap 18.0Why Yearn (v3) ranks above Lagoon
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 18.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisYearn (v3)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.916.7−17.7, 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 criterionThisYearn (v3)Points
Mandate accountability · w3047−2.88, worse
Exit mechanics under stress · w2636−2.50, worse
Strategy risk honesty · w2447−2.30, worse
Fee transparency · w2068−1.28, worse
Net6482−18.0
Your scenario
Lagoon is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 3 November 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/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 median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
5 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 3 November 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 #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
Mandate accountabilitystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—3 November 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.Exit mechanics under stressstrength 3 · weight 26Report an error—3 November 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.Strategy risk honestystrength 4 · weight 24Report an error—3 November 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.Fee transparencystrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—3 November 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
- Contract failure (Lagoon 4/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Strategy risk honesty · 24%
- Control failure (Lagoon 4/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Mandate accountability · 30%
- Exit failure (Lagoon 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit mechanics under stress · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Fee transparency (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No platform-wide rate: management, performance, entry and exit fees are set per vault by its curator. Lagoon's docs (docs.lagoon.finance, read 3 November 2026): "All fee structures (management, performance, entry and exit fees) are encoded directly in the vault's smart contract and visible to any investor prior to deposit". Lagoon's full documentation (docs.lagoon.finance/llms-full.txt, read 3 November 2026) says "Protocol-enforced caps protect depositors from excessive fees.": a management fee cap of 10% per year, a performance fee cap of 50% on profits above the high-water mark, an entry and exit fee cap of 2%, and a haircut cap of 20% on instant redemptions. Lagoon's own protocol fee is 10% of the fees the curator collects, not of deposits. The comparison-relevant number exists only at the individual vault level.Lagoon documentation ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDLagoon documentation ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- EVM multi-chain
- Markets served
- europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global onchain depositors
- Restricted markets
- United States
- Operating limits
- Request-based deposits and redemptions; some vaults access-controlled.
- Availability note
- Lagoon Protocol Terms of Use (PDF linked from docs.lagoon.finance/resources/terms-of-use, read 3 November 2026): "Use of the Website by persons who are currently or ordinarily located in, or residents of, the United States is strictly prohibited, regardless of the user's IP address." and "The Services are not offered or made available to U.S. residents." Each vault is either permissionless or access-controlled by its Access Manager (whitelist, blacklist or sanctions list).
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Lagoon: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 3 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 64, #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 yield_vaults:lagoon:2026.10.18:b64ac191d192
Are you Lagoon? 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.