ChainChoice verdict

Mimic Protocol

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#6 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 17 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 63 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 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

6+5.386.08#3/7Primary

3+2.884.09#5/7Primary

4+3.076.07#5/7Primary

6+3.466.09#4/7Primary

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

Margin−2behind Keep3r Network, #5

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 → #5

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 → #5

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

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 6/10
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute — 6/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

4 from the score data

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 I pulled), 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

Where Mimic Protocol 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#6 / 711.1 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 Mimic Protocol leads

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#3 / 7

Where it trails

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#5 / 7
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

Keep3r Network#5 of 7 · score 65 · 2.0 points ahead

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

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

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

Compare View verdict

DeFi Saver Automation#4 of 7 · score 67 · 4.0 points ahead

Mimic Protocol leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true6 vs 4

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published4 vs 3
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 6

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

Compare View verdict

Reactive Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · 6.0 points ahead

Mimic Protocol leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published3 vs 2

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 Reactive Network is ahead: published criteria (+6.0 display points).Scenario cost: Reactive Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Mimic Protocol

80 vs 63 · gap 17.0

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 17.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight11.117.8−17.4

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 · w3038−4.80

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

Net6380−17.0

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

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.

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

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

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 6 · weight 28Report an errordocs.mimic.fiProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 3 · weight 30Report an errordocs.mimic.fiProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

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

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 6 · weight 18Report an errordocs.mimic.fiProvider'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 2026-08-14 against https://docs.mimic.fi/developers/fees (read as markdown via the .md endpoint the page itself publishes). Character-exact: "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 typo, reproduced verbatim). The fee table on the same page publishes per-component formulas, all re-read in the table markup: 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: "**Q: Are protocol fees always 0%?**" / "Currently yes, but this may change as the network scales." Solver fees are separate and buyer-capped: "Developers can specify how these are paid when creating an intent, through the intent's `maxFee` property on their function code." PRICING-SHAPED URLS RE-TRIED 2026-08-14: https://mimic.fi/pricing redirects to https://www.mimic.fi/pricing and both return HTTP 404; the string "pricing" does not occur anywhere in the rendered homepage at https://www.mimic.fi/, whose navigation carries Home / Platform / Solutions / Developers / Blog / Contact us. The Fees doc is the only published price disclosure. Recorded as disclosure only — price is ranked in no criterion on this page. — no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.Mimic Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDMimic Protocol — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 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 2026-08-14. 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. I re-read the full terms text and confirm 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.

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 63, #6 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:mimic_protocol: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.