ChainChoice verdict

Reactive Network

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#3 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 11 points behind #1 TukTuk (Helium). Scored 69 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 Reactive Network ranks #3

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in the pool on 2 of 4.

4 published criteria · Σ weight 100

CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence

8+7.176.08#1/7Primary

2+1.924.09#6/7Third party

7+5.386.07#1/7Primary

6+3.466.09#4/7Primary

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

MarginLevelbehind KeeperHub, #2

RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 67–71 and ranks #2–#4

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 Reactive Network’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 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes KeeperHub+170#3 → #2

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes KeeperHub+171#3 → #2

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes KeeperHub+170#3 → #2

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes KeeperHub+170#3 → #2

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 8 → 7 on its ladder · DeFi Saver Automation passes it−167#3 → #4

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 2 → 1 on its ladder · DeFi Saver Automation passes it−167#3 → #4

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet 7 → 6 on its ladder · DeFi Saver Automation passes it−167#3 → #4

Smallest climb: what can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 8 → 9 passes KeeperHub, #2.

Strengths

Where it leads

2 from the score data

Record says best for

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true — 8/10
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet — 7/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

2 from the score data

Record watch-outs

The architecture that removes the vendor from the PREDICATE does not remove it from the DELIVERY. One externally-owned account, 0x777f67156e2bb3ee9cea6866c2656b099b67d132, was observed on 2026-08-14 sending every cron() transaction on Reactive Mainnet AND every callback delivery on Ethereum and Base, and 399 of 400 on Arbitrum — behind an onchain allowlist ("require(callback_senders[msg.sender], 'Callback only')") whose membership sits in an internal mapping the buyer can neither join nor read. The vendor names this single delivering role itself: "Callbacks are delivered by Reactive Signer, which posts transactions to destination chains." "No callers, no keepers" is true of the condition and false of the crank: if that one key stops, your function is never called, and nothing in the published docs gives you a way to call it yourself. Three secondary things to read before committing. First, the callback target is only nominally arbitrary — "Reactive Network replaces the first 160 bits of the callback payload with the address of the reactive contract that initiated the callback" — so the recipient must be purpose-written rather than any pre-existing contract. Second, the one timing number on the marketing site is wrong by 7x: reactive.network advertises "~1s blocks", while the chain measured a steady 7.00 s/block and the vendor's own CRON table says "~7 seconds". Third, a migration is visibly under way and is nowhere announced — an entire /legacy/ docs tree sits beside the current one, the library moved to reactive-lib-omni and the testnet RPC to lasna-omni, the cron mechanism is described as belonging to "The legacy system contract", and across all 16 sitemap URLs plus the current tree there is not one occurrence of "sunset", "end of life" or "migration". Note also that the current docs tree is served as unlisted pages carrying "This page is unlisted. Search engines will not index it, and only users having a direct link can access it." — only the /legacy/ tree, /docs/, /contacts/ and /search appear in dev.reactive.network/sitemap.xml, so a reader arriving from search lands on the older documentation.

Competitive position

Where Reactive Network 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#3 / 713.4 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 Reactive Network leads

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#1 / 7
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet#1 / 7

Where it trails

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#6 / 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

KeeperHub#2 of 7 · score 69 · same score

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

KeeperHub leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published6 vs 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute7 vs 6

Largest single reason KeeperHub is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: KeeperHub has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

DeFi Saver Automation#4 of 7 · score 67 · 2.0 points behind

Reactive Network leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 6

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 2
The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute9 vs 6

Largest single reason Reactive Network is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: DeFi Saver Automation has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Keep3r Network#5 of 7 · score 65 · 4.0 points behind

Reactive Network leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 2
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 4
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 2

Largest single reason Reactive Network is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: Keep3r Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above Reactive Network

80 vs 69 · gap 11.0

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 11.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisTukTuk (Helium)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight13.417.8−11.4

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisTukTuk (Helium)Points

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3028−5.76

Net6980−11.0

Compare with #1 TukTuk (Helium)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if Reactive Network fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Reactive Network 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

Reactive Network 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 stabilityCould climbone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness45 days agonewest read 14 Aug 2026 · current

Primary-source share75%3 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 8 · weight 28Report an errordev.reactive.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 2 · weight 30Report an erroreth.blockscout.comThird-party page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 7 · weight 24Report an errordev.reactive.networkProvider's own page14 Aug 2026*CurrentVerified

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to executestrength 6 · weight 18Report an errordev.reactive.networkProvider'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: No pricing page exists on either domain. The only published price mechanics are on https://dev.reactive.network/economy, character-exact: "Callback costs depend on the destination network and current base fees." and "Reactive Network enforces a minimum callback gas limit of 100,000 gas. Callback requests below this threshold are ignored, as this minimum ensures sufficient gas for internal audits and computations required to process the callback." and "The maximum gas limit for reactive transactions is 900,000 units." Two formulas are published, rendered in KaTeX (LaTeX source read out of the page's own <annotation encoding="application/x-tex"> elements on 2026-08-14): the reactive-transaction fee as "fee = BaseFee ⋅ GasUsed", and the callback price as "p_{callback} = p_{base} ⋅ C ⋅ (g_{callback} + K)", where C is a "destination-network pricing coefficient" and K a "fixed gas surcharge" — neither C nor K is assigned a number on any page. Pricing-shaped URLs tried on 2026-08-14: reactive.network/pricing, /fees, /plans and /status all return a 7,210-byte SPA shell, identical in byte length to reactive.network/validators, /staking and /privacy — and identical to the control URL reactive.network/nonexistent-xyzzy-12345, which proves the shell is a catch-all for pages that do not exist rather than a retired page. dev.reactive.network/pricing and dev.reactive.network/legacy/pricing return hard HTTP 404 (153 bytes). All 16 URLs in dev.reactive.network/sitemap.xml and all 11 in reactive.network/sitemap.xml were enumerated on 2026-08-14; none is a pricing page. The verified CallbackProxy source on Ethereum does carry a constructor hint — "uint256 _gas_price_coefficient_promille, // Suggested: 1050" — implying a 5% gas premium, but that number is published nowhere on the vendor's own pages.Reactive Network — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDReactive Network — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: Ethereum, Base, BSC, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Sonic, Linea, Unichain, Abstract, HyperEVM, Plasma, Reactive Network
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Global, with no country restriction published anywhere — verified 2026-08-14 by reading https://reactive.network/terms in full. The Terms impose only generic lawfulness obligations and name no prohibited-country list, no sanctions schedule and no US-person carve-out: under ELIGIBILITY, "The user confirms that they are at least 18 years old or otherwise of legal age in their jurisdiction, have the legal capacity to enter into these Terms, and are not prohibited by applicable law from using the Website" and "The user is responsible for determining whether their access to or use of the Website, the Reactive Network protocol or any digital asset referred to on the Website is lawful in their jurisdiction"; under ACCEPTABLE USE the user shall not "use the Website in violation of any applicable law or regulation, including applicable sanctions, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws" or "use the Website from, or on behalf of a person in, a jurisdiction where such use is prohibited". The duty to determine lawfulness is pushed to the user; the vendor blocks nobody by name. There is no KYC, no account and no sign-up: the product is deployed by sending a Solidity contract to a public RPC, so access is permissionless in practice. The operating entity per the same page is "PARSIQ TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD., a company incorporated in Singapore with Unique Entity Number (UEN) 202306664E and registered office at 178 Joo Chiat Road, #02-02, Singapore 427449, trading as Reactive Network", with Terms "governed by the laws of Singapore". That entity detail is quoted from the vendor's own page ONLY and is expressly NOT register-verified: a direct ACRA lookup was attempted on 2026-08-14 and failed (data.gov.sg's ACRA datastore resource returned HTTP 404, bizfile.gov.sg serves a 1,583-byte JavaScript shell, and its /api/search endpoint returned HTTP 500), so the UEN and registered address remain unconfirmed against the register itself. No financial licence or authorisation of any kind is claimed, implied or asserted here.

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 69, #3 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:reactive_network: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.