Provider at a glance
- Category
- Intent Networks
- Entity
- All 2 NEAR products
- Official website
- near-intents.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 65 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
NEAR Intents
Intent message bus with solvers
Intent Networks
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 7 intent networks in the published ranking
65
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is NEAR Intents right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Network fee disclosure8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Bid set visibility6/10 here; the category best is 10
- Fallback when nobody fills6/10 here; Across Protocol scores 9
- Solver admission2/10 here; deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) 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 intent network shows where it lands for you.
What will NEAR Intents cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is NEAR Intents?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Extraordinary review of NEAR Intents, re-read · Exploit · opened · re-read
All nine quoted passages behind its four published criteria still read word for word on its documentation on 2026-10-20, so no score moves. None of the four criteria reads contract or bridge security, so the $3.8M loss on 1 October falls outside what intents ranks; the post-failure note on /methodology/calibration says so.
Reported by: decrypt.co
Alternatives to NEAR Intents
Compare all 4- 2UniswapX3 points above · stronger on solver admission (8 against 2)68
- 3Across Protocol2 points above · stronger on solver admission (7 against 2)67
- 5deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)1 point below · stronger on solver admission (9 against 2)64
For your setup
Find out if NEAR Intents fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where NEAR Intents 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 intent networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why NEAR Intents ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
346+6.534.010#2/7Loading evidence…
202+1.287.09#5/7Loading evidence…
228+5.638.08#1/7Loading evidence…
246+4.616.09#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Across Protocol, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 63–67 and ranks #4–#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 NEAR Intents’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.
Bid set visibility 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Across Protocol+269#4 → #2
Solver admission 2 → 4 on its ladder · passes Across Protocol+267#4 → #3
Network fee disclosure 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Across Protocol+267#4 → #3
Fallback when nobody fills 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Across Protocol+268#4 → #3
Bid set visibility 6 → 5 on its ladder · deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) passes it−163#4 → #5
Solver admission 2 → 1 on its ladder · deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) passes it−164#4 → #5
Network fee disclosure 8 → 7 on its ladder · deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) passes it−163#4 → #5
Smallest climb: bid set visibility 6 → 8 passes Across Protocol, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Network fee disclosure — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Bid set visibility — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Fallback when nobody fills — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Solver admission — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The 0.0001% headline is the smallest fee in this comparison and almost nobody pays only that. The same page states that swaps executed through near-intents.org carry "0.2%" on top, and, on 2026-09-28, that the 1Click API charges "0.20% (20 bps) normally; 0.01% (1 bp) for stablecoin pairs (USDC, USDT, DAI) and same-asset multichain routes" with an API key and an "Additional 0.25% (25 bps)" without one — 2,000 and 2,500 times the protocol fee. In August an API key waived that platform fee; it no longer does, so the advertised rate is the rate for nobody who routes through 1Click or the front end. Chain coverage was checked against bridge.chaindefuser.com/rpc on 2026-08-08: its supported_tokens call returned 212 tokens across 33 distinct chain families. Linea is not in the list above because no eth:59144 asset appears in that response; Fogo and Movement are, because they do. Three EVM chain ids in the response (196, 9745 and 36900) are still left unnamed here rather than guessed.
Competitive position
Where NEAR Intents 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 · constant here
Published criteria#4 / 713.5 of 30 · best 19.8
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 NEAR Intents leads
- Bid set visibility#2 / 7
- Network fee disclosure#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Solver admission#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.
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN)#5 of 7 · score 64 · 1.0 point behind
NEAR Intents leads on
- Bid set visibility6 vs 3
- Fallback when nobody fills6 vs 4
deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) leads on
- Solver admission9 vs 2
Largest single reason NEAR Intents is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: deBridge Liquidity Network (DLN) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Across Protocol#3 of 7 · score 67 · 2.0 points ahead
NEAR Intents leads on
- Bid set visibility6 vs 4
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 5
Across Protocol leads on
- Solver admission7 vs 2
- Fallback when nobody fills9 vs 6
Largest single reason Across Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: Across Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
UniswapX#2 of 7 · score 68 · 3.0 points ahead
NEAR Intents leads on
- Bid set visibility6 vs 4
- Network fee disclosure8 vs 6
UniswapX leads on
- Solver admission8 vs 2
- Fallback when nobody fills8 vs 6
Largest single reason UniswapX is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: UniswapX has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 65 · gap 16.0Why CoW Protocol ranks above NEAR Intents
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 16.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCoW ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.519.8−16.4, 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 criterionThisCoW ProtocolPoints
Bid set visibility · w34610−4.35, worse
Solver admission · w2027−3.20, worse
Fallback when nobody fills · w2467−0.77, worse
Net6581−16.0
Your scenario
NEAR Intents is not priced for this scenario
Transfer fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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 · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone 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 median, 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #4 to #5 across one-point re-runs
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 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Bid set visibilitystrength 6 · weight 34Report an error—28 September 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.Solver admissionstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 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.Network fee disclosurestrength 8 · weight 22Report an error—28 September 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.Fallback when nobody fillsstrength 6 · weight 24Report an error—28 September 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
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Bid set visibility · 34% (NEAR Intents 6/10)Scored by Solver admission · 20% (NEAR Intents 2/10)Scored by Fallback when nobody fills · 24% (NEAR Intents 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Exit 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: Network fee disclosure (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- docs.near-intents.org/resources/fees, fetched 2026-09-28: the protocol fee is "0.0001% (1 pip) per transaction", "Collected on-chain by the intents.near smart contract" and "Applies to every transfer, swap, or transaction". Swaps executed through the near-intents.org front end carry a "0.2% fee", "Collected by the proprietary distribution channel in addition to the protocol fee". The 1Click Swap API adds platform fees "in addition to the 0.0001% on-chain protocol fee": without an API key an "Additional 0.25% (25 bps)" applies; with an API key and no appFees the charge is "0.20% (20 bps) normally; 0.01% (1 bp) for stablecoin pairs (USDC, USDT, DAI) and same-asset multichain routes"; with appFees the take is "Split 50/50, with 1Click keeping at least 20 bps". A quote-improvement fee splits any execution better than the quote "50/50 between you and the protocol" while the quote is fresh, and NEAR, ZEC and STRK withdrawn to Solana pay a "0.1% fee". Changed since 2026-08-08: the page then said an API-key holder paid only the 0.0001% protocol fee and a caller without a key an additional 0.2%; it now sets 20 bps as the floor 1Click keeps even with a key, and 0.25% without one.NEAR Intents — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDNEAR Intents — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- NEAR, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Gnosis, Scroll, Berachain, Monad, Solana, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Dash, Zcash, XRP Ledger, TON, Tron, Sui, Aptos, Starknet, Stellar, Cardano, Aleo, Fogo, Movement
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: NEAR, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with NEAR Intents: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 65, #4 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 intents:near_intents:2026.10.18:dc470144c3be
Are you NEAR Intents? 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.