The score, by dimension
- the same for all 7
- #6 of 7 · best 17.8
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
Mimic Protocol
Automation written as TypeScript conditions
#6 of all 7 worldwide63
- Rank
- #6 of all 7 worldwidere-runs: scores 61–64 and stays #6
- Your cost
- Not priced on this basis
- Evidence
- High4 of 4 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read September 2026checked · re-read due
Check availability for your country
Mimic Protocol · docs.mimic.fi. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
The verdict
Mimic Protocol is #6 of 7 published automation & keepers; it scores 6/10 on trigger surface and predicate locus, where the category best is 8. Its widest gap is survives the vendor: 3/10, where Keep3r Network scores 9. Choose Keep3r Network if survives the vendor matters most.
Is Mimic Protocol right for you?
Look elsewhere if
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published3/10 here; Keep3r Network scores 9
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6/10 here; Reactive Network scores 8
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet4/10 here; Reactive Network scores 7
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute6/10 here; DeFi Saver Automation scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best automation network shows where it lands for you.
What will Mimic Protocol cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Mimic Protocol?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Entity: not verified. No hand-confirmed record on file ties Mimic Protocol to the company that runs it, so this page cannot say which other products that company operates. Read the legal entity in its terms before you deposit. How we read the evidence
Open the evidenceIf it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 3Reactive NetworkIf visibility of the non event matters most: 75 points above · stronger on visibility of the non event (7 against 4)68
- 4DeFi Saver AutomationIf published lateness bound matters most: 93 points above · stronger on published lateness bound (9 against 6)66
- 5Keep3r NetworkIf survives the vendor matters most: 92 points above · stronger on survives the vendor (9 against 3)65
Provider at a glance
- Category
- Automation & Keepers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.mimic.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 63 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in September 2026.
For your setup
Find out if Mimic Protocol fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Mimic Protocol 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 automation networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Mimic Protocol 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 (14.8 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
286+5.386.08#3/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28303+2.884.09#5/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28244+3.075.07#5/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28186+3.466.09#4/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-09-28Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Keep3r Network, #5 of all 7 worldwide, on the published score
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 61–64 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 Mimic Protocol’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 → 8 on its ladder · passes Keep3r Network+266#6 → #4
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Keep3r Network+266#6 → #4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Keep3r Network+265#6 → #5
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Keep3r Network+265#6 → #5
Smallest climb: what can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 6 → 8 passes Keep3r Network, #5.
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
- Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Mimic is a self-declared pre-audit alpha whose entire execution path is, today, two addresses. Read this before committing a position to it: the Settler's `execute` is `onlySolver` behind an onchain allowlist that has exactly two entries, and across a full trailing 30 days (2026-07-15 to 2026-08-14) all 89 `execute` transactions on Ethereum and Base came from a single sender, 0xE0D76433Edd9f5df370561bd0AF231E72c83Cd3a; all 1,000 sampled execution records name a single relayer, 0x312ab332192ac97f363e96f010daf4ad01064c6c. Your trigger is not registered anywhere a third party could serve it — by the vendor's own roadmap it is "stored in a private repository" — no relayer or solver runner is published (five repos in the org, @mimicprotocol/relayer is a 404 on npm), and nothing anywhere in the 36-page corpus commits to a sunset date, a successor or a migration path. If Mimic stops, nobody can call your function and nobody is obliged to tell you. You would also have to notice by polling: "webhook", "notify", "notification" and "alert" occur zero times across the entire documentation corpus, and the vendor's own guidance for a run that never happened is "First, make sure you haven’t run out of credits." Second thing to read: the disclosed decline conditions are not theoretical. Of the 100 most recent intents on 2026-08-14, 85 carried `"status":"discarded"`, with both allowlisted solvers returning "No quote for intent … (reverted)" — treat that as a dated observation on an alpha network carrying mostly demo DCA traffic, not as a reliability rate, but do not assume an intent that is produced is an intent that settles. Set `executionFeeLimit` and the intent `maxFee` deliberately. Weighed against all of that, the liveness footing is the strongest kind this category recognises — dated onchain execution by a named sender against a verified contract the vendor publishes itself — and the transparency is genuinely above par: the compiled WASM is content-addressed and downloadable unauthenticated (115,426 bytes for the module read), and every run's signed oracle inputs, logs, validator signatures and fee breakdown are readable by anyone without an account. The vendor states the risk in its own words: "The current version of Mimic Protocol is an alpha release being tested. Please note this version has **not been audited yet**." (https://docs.mimic.fi/developers/supported-chains) and "Please be aware that Mimic Protocol is currently **experimental**." (https://docs.mimic.fi/resources/security).
Competitive position
How Mimic Protocol places on each criterion
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.
Against the leader
80 vs 63 · gap 17.0Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Mimic Protocol
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 17.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.117.8−17.4, 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 criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2868−1.79, worse
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3038−4.80, worse
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · w2447−2.30, worse
Net6380−17.0
Your scenario
Mimic Protocol 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 · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDTypical costNot statedFewer than 5 priced rows: no typical cost is named · 0 of 7 rows priced
Lowest fee, priced rowsNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the typical, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 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 10 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was truestrength 6 · weight 28Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 3 · weight 30Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 4 · weight 24Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 6 · weight 18Report an errorProvider's own page28 September 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Mimic Protocol 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · 28%
- Liveness failure (Mimic Protocol 4/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · 24%
- Execution failure (Mimic Protocol 6/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · 18%
- Exit failure (Mimic Protocol 3/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · 30%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Fetched 28 September 2026 from https://
docs .mimic .fi /developers /fees (rendered and its .md source), unchanged since August: "When you execute a function in Mimic, several automated services work behind the scenes — fetching data, validating results, and submitting transactions. Each of these steps has a small cost, combined into what we call the **execution fee**." and "All fees are settled **off-chain** using Mimic USD Credits, our internal payment system. It can funded anytime with any token from any supported chain." (the missing "be" is the vendor's). Fee table, per component: Trigger "Cron: 0.00004" / "Event: 0.1"; Relayers "Base: 0.00004" / "Fuel: 0.7257 Gwei × unit"; Oracles "RPC: 0.00000235" / "Price: 0.0004" / "Tokens: 0.012" / "Subgraph: 0.00004235"; Validators "Base: 0.00004235" / "Fuel: 0.7257 Gwei × unit"; Intents "Per intent: 0.000801"; Protocol "0%". FAQ on the same page: "Are protocol fees always 0%?" / "Currently yes, but this may change as the network scales." Solver fees are separate and capped by the buyer: "Developers can specify how these are paid when creating an intent, through the intent's `maxFee` property on their function code." https:// www .mimic .fi /pricing returned HTTP 404 on 28 September 2026. Recorded as disclosure only; price ranks in no criterion on this page.Mimic Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDMimic Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Base Sepolia, Sonic, Optimism, Gnosis Chain, Polygon, BNB Binance Smart chain, Avalanche
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Re-verified 14 August 2026. No geographic restriction is published on any page read. Docs (docs.mimic.fi), the protocol app (protocol.mimic.fi, HTTP 200), and the protocol API (api-protocol.mimic.fi, unauthenticated) all served without a region gate; there is no country selector, no "available in" list and no KYC step in the sign-up path described at https://
docs .mimic .fi /developers /cli, where login is purely an API key ("Authenticates with Mimic by storing your API key locally.", retrieved "from the [Mimic explorer](https:// protocol .mimic .fi /) under your account settings"). The only eligibility constraint is the standard sanctions representation at https:// www .mimic .fi /terms, character-exact: "You further represent that you are not a citizen, resident, or member of any jurisdiction or group that is subject to economic sanctions by the United States, or where your use of the Interface would be illegal or otherwise violate any applicable law." The same page requires the user to be "at least eighteen years old". Access is therefore global subject to that sanctions carve-out, which is a legal representation rather than a served regional restriction. Note that eligibility to BUILD is separate from eligibility to be an operator: the roadmap gates future solver, oracle and relayer participation behind "KYC Process for Solvers" (Phase 2), "KYC Process for Oracles" (Phase 3) and "KYC Process for Relayers" (Phase 4) at https:// docs .mimic .fi /general /roadmap. The full terms text, re-read, names no operating entity, governing-law clause, jurisdiction, arbitration venue or corporate suffix (LLC, Ltd, Inc, GmbH, S.A.) appears anywhere on it.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Mimic Protocol: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.11.1Score 63, #6 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 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt automation_keepers:mimic_protocol:2026.11.1:89ccfa60e9be
Are you Mimic Protocol? 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.