Provider at a glance
- Category
- Web3 Apps
- Entity
- All 3 Raydium products
- Official website
- raydium.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 55 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Raydium
Swap app on Solana
Web3 Apps
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 10 Web3 apps in the published ranking
55
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $30 your cost/yr
Is Raydium right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Ecosystem fit9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Use-case fit6/10 here; Aave scores 9
- Confidence signal6/10 here; Aave scores 7
- Operating style4/10 here; Jupiter scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best Web3 app shows where it lands for you.
What will Raydium cost you?
$30 your cost/yr
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Swap spread
- 0.25%
Level with the median of 6 priced Web3 apps.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Raydium?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Raydium
Compare all 4- 6Jupiter4 points above · stronger on job fit (8 against 6)59$12
- 8Aave4 points below · stronger on job fit (9 against 6)51
- 9PancakeSwap8 points below · stronger on job fit (8 against 6)47$30
For your setup
Find out if Raydium fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Raydium 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 Web3 appNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Raydium ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.1 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
306+5.768.010#10/10Loading evidence…
249+6.917.510#2/10Loading evidence…
224+2.825.59#7/10Loading evidence…
246+4.617.09#7/10Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Jupiter, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 53–56 and stays #7
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 Raydium’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.
Use-case fit 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Jupiter+360#7 → #6
Operating style 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Jupiter+460#7 → #6
Confidence signal 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Jupiter+460#7 → #6
Use-case fit 6 → 4 on its ladder · Aave passes it−251#7 → #8
Ecosystem fit 9 → 6 on its ladder · Aave passes it−350#7 → #8
Operating style 4 → 1 on its ladder · Aave passes it−350#7 → #8
Smallest climb: use-case fit 6 → 9 passes Jupiter, #6.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Ecosystem fit — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Use-case fit — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Confidence signal — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Operating style — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Less broadly understandable than the clearest mainstream app defaults
- Not the strongest fit if your workflow is EVM-first or NFT-led
Competitive position
Where Raydium 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 / 1020.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#10 / 1015.1 of 30 · best 22.4
Friction#6 / 102.7 of 10 · best 6.7
Trust record#8 / 103.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 106.9 of 18 · constant here
Where Raydium leads
- Ecosystem fit#2 / 10
Where it trails
- Use-case fit#10 / 10
- Operating style#7 / 10
- Confidence signal#7 / 10
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.
Jupiter#6 of 10 · score 59 · 4.0 points ahead
Raydium leads onNo scored criterion
Jupiter leads on
- Use-case fit8 vs 6
- Operating style5 vs 4
Largest single reason Jupiter is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter is −$18 against Raydium.
Aave#8 of 10 · score 51 · 4.0 points behind
Raydium leads on
- Ecosystem fit9 vs 8
- Operating style4 vs 3
Aave leads on
- Use-case fit9 vs 6
- Confidence signal7 vs 6
Largest single reason Raydium is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: Aave has no verified pricing for this scenario.
PancakeSwap#9 of 10 · score 47 · 8.0 points behind
Raydium leads on
- Confidence signal6 vs 5
PancakeSwap leads on
- Use-case fit8 vs 6
Largest single reason Raydium is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: PancakeSwap is the same.
Against the leader
87 vs 55 · gap 32.0Why Uniswap ranks above Raydium
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 32.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisUniswapGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.122.4−19.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.74.7−5.2, worse
Trust record · 9% weight3.26.4−8.3, worse
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here6.96.9same
Published criterionThisUniswapPoints
Use-case fit · w30610−3.84, worse
Ecosystem fit · w24910−0.77, worse
Operating style · w2248−2.82, worse
Confidence signal · w2469−2.30, worse
Net5587−32.0
Your scenario
What Raydium costs on your scenario
Swap spread 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
$1k a month × 12 months × 0.25% swap spread = $30 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Swap spread · published rate0.25%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 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.
$30
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$306 of 10 rows priced · Raydium at the median
Cheapest priced$2.40 · Curve FinanceRaydium costs +$28 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Curve Finance
3 of 10 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
1 of 10 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 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 #7 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 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Use-case fitstrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—30 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.Ecosystem fitstrength 9 · weight 24Report an error—30 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.Operating stylestrength 4 · weight 22Report an error—30 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.Confidence signalstrength 6 · weight 24Report an error—30 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
None of this ranking's criteria scores a way of losing money; the families that apply are listed below as not assessed.
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Use-case fit (30%), Ecosystem fit (24%), Operating style (22%), Confidence signal (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Raydium's FAQ (docs.raydium.io/getting-started/faq, fetched 30 September 2026): "Trading fee: 0.25% on most pools (some tiers offer 0.01%, 0.05%, or 1%). Split between LPs and protocol. Charged on every swap." and "Network fee: ~0.0005-0.002 SOL (a few cents) for the Solana transaction itself." Two add-ons can raise the total: a Token-2022 token with a transfer fee compounds on top of the pool fee, and a CPMM pool may charge a separate creator fee. Worked example from the CPMM fees page (same date): a 0.25% trade fee plus a 0.10% creator fee "charges a combined 0.35% of the input". Raydium's own router takes no fee; each hop pays its pool's fee.Raydium — official page at docs.raydium.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRaydium — official page at docs.raydium.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global Solana DeFi users
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Practical fit depends on a genuinely Solana-native workflow and supported token liquidity.
- Availability note
- Broadly accessible onchain, but its real relevance is much narrower outside Solana-native activity.
Legal entity on file: Raydium, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Raydium: 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.
10 methodology entries
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 55, #7 of 10. 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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.0Layer-2 chains are ranked on whether you can leave with your funds- added Four l2_chains criteria with published band ladders: proof system (18), withdrawals if the operator stops (18), rollup stage (14) and exit window before an upgrade (6). EVM equivalence moves 40 to 17, Ethereum data availability 25 to 15 and maturity 35 to 12. Every chain's emergency exit window reads None, so the exit-window ladder also reads L2BEAT's regular, non-emergency upgrade path (Arbitrum One 10 days, Starknet and Arbitrum Nova 7, zkSync Era 4 days 3 hours); data availability separates full transaction data (10) from state diffs only (9, L2BEAT: Onchain (SD)). A stage L2BEAT marks Under review keeps its last score for at most one 45-day cycle and is never interpolated.
- changed l2_chains ranks through scoreCriterionObjective on fitStrength, like the other criterion-ranked categories; the hand-written structural scorer is deleted. All 105 criterion scores across 15 rows carry a quote and source in research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-l2_chains.json; 131 of 135 quotes re-fetched verbatim on the read date, and the four behind a bot wall or a JavaScript shell were read by the adversarial model run.
- fixed Four facts corrected on the read: Scroll, Mantle and Blast are EVM-compatible, not equivalent (their own documentation, and for Blast live RPC probes); Starknet's public mainnet opened to users in 2022, not 2021. Arbitrum Nova's data has gone to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, and the row now leads with the Arbitrum DAO's decision to minimise it.
- fixed The old scorer credited Ethereum data availability whenever the data-availability text contained the word "ethereum", so Arbitrum Nova's committee ("…Ethereum L1 rollup fallback") and Polygon zkEVM's off-chain data ("…Ethereum L1 before the sunset") both scored full marks. Data availability is now a quoted L2BEAT reading.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt web3_apps:raydium:2026.10.18:efa2f17844c7
Are you Raydium? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Raydium , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.