ChainChoice verdict

TukTuk (Helium)

Automation & KeepersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#1 overall across 7 scored automation & keepers. 11 points ahead of #2 KeeperHub. Scored 80 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 TukTuk (Helium) ranks #1

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.7 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

8+7.684.09#2/7Primary

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

Margin+11over KeeperHub, #2

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 80–81 and stays #1

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 TukTuk (Helium)’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.

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published 8 → 2 on its ladder · KeeperHub passes it−678#1 → #3

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true 8 → 1 on its ladder · KeeperHub passes it−777#1 → #3

Strengths

Where it leads

3 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 the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published — 8/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

1 from the score data

Record watch-outs

Read this before committing: the programs are UPGRADEABLE and one authority controls both. tuktukUrfhXT6ZT77QTU8RQtvgL967uRuVagWF57zVA and cronAjRZnJn3MTP3B9kE62NWDrjSuAPVXf9c4hu4grM are owned by BPFLoaderUpgradeab1e11111111111111111111111, and their programData accounts both report the SAME upgrade authority, pULUgsYtKvT7qhsL8QJ2oJXYQUeCCdjtfawPnBqEr3U (read via getAccountInfo on mainnet-beta, 2026-08-14). That account is system-owned with zero data and 2,426.04 SOL; whether it is a single keypair or a multisig vault cannot be determined from the account, and the vendor publishes nothing about who holds it. Everything this product scores well on — the unconstrained `crank_turner: Signer` that lets anyone execute your task — is code one key can replace, and there is no published continuity statement, sunset policy or security contact anywhere on the site or in the repo (no SECURITY.md, no CHANGELOG.md, /terms and /status both HTTP 404, status.tuktuk.fun NXDOMAIN). Three further things. (1) Firing is time-only: the published TriggerV0 enum is exactly {Now, Timestamp(i64)}, with cron expressions layered on by a second onchain program. There is no event, state, HTTP or cross-chain trigger. Unlike the draft's reading, a conditional loop IS supported without a server you own — a task's program can return its successor via RunTaskReturnV0, and the vendor publishes an instruction named `recurring_task` at https://www.tuktuk.fun/docs/api/cpi-example-sdk — but you must write and deploy that Solana program yourself; the platform evaluates nothing but the clock. (2) The executor count needs its caveat carried with it: seven distinct addresses ran RunTaskV0 in the verified window, but four of them have their FIRST-EVER transaction funded from one wallet, 4SP9UEdkdPsFgEVmERLXZ4aUAFGCJ2JUuBgFyYAnv8AF, on 2026-08-11 — three in a single transaction. The chain supports 'at least two independent operator groups', not 'seven independent operators'. (3) Nothing pushes: across all 23 published pages there is no webhook, alert, notification or email of any kind, so a defunded cron stops forever until a human polls — and the field the vendor's own monitoring page tells you to poll, removed_from_queue, is marked '// Deprecated: You should use the next_schedule_task instead' in the program source, while next_schedule_task appears on no page of the site. Separately, the homepage states the contracts are 'currently being audited. Use at your own risk.' with no auditor, report or date. PRICING, recorded as disclosure and ranked in no criterion: there is no subscription, no per-execution rate card and no vendor invoice. The buyer sets crank_reward per task in lamports (the CLI example at https://www.tuktuk.fun/docs/learn/create_a_task_queue uses --crank-reward 1000000, i.e. 0.001 SOL) and whichever anonymous signer executes it collects it; a live successful run logged 'Program log: Paying out reward 15000' (15,000 lamports) in signature 3iRR1cX8S7gbe3KiLDkG3KMhFu4V5D156YsaRPvibA9nnqhc7D6afoHxJpTraQsouKmhT3ewppsxfTR5fKXZSoLQ, slot 439184245, read on mainnet-beta 2026-08-14. That the crank reward is the ONLY fee is now verified rather than assumed: across all 17 .rs files of the tuktuk program, `uncollected_protocol_fees` appears exactly three times — twice as a struct field declaration in state.rs and once initialised to 0 in initialize_task_queue_v0.rs — with no code path anywhere that increments it. Pricing-shaped URLs tried, all HTTP 404 on 2026-08-14: /pricing, /docs/pricing, /terms.

Competitive position

Where TukTuk (Helium) 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#1 / 717.8 of 30 · pool best

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 TukTuk (Helium) leads

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true#1 / 7
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published#2 / 7
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet#1 / 7

Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.

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 · 11.0 points behind

TukTuk (Helium) leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 6
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published8 vs 6
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 4

KeeperHub leads on

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute7 vs 6

Largest single reason TukTuk (Helium) is ahead: published criteria (+10.7 display points).Scenario cost: KeeperHub has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Reactive Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · 11.0 points behind

TukTuk (Helium) leads on

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published8 vs 2

Reactive Network leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason TukTuk (Helium) is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: Reactive Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

DeFi Saver Automation#4 of 7 · score 67 · 13.0 points behind

TukTuk (Helium) leads on

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true8 vs 4
Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published8 vs 4
Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet7 vs 6

DeFi Saver Automation leads on

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

Largest single reason TukTuk (Helium) is ahead: published criteria (+12.7 display points).Scenario cost: DeFi Saver Automation has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against #2

Why TukTuk (Helium) ranks above KeeperHub

80 vs 69 · gap 11.0

DimensionThisKeeperHubGap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight17.813.7+10.7

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisKeeperHubPoints

What can fire the call, against what target, and who can check the condition was true · w2886+1.79

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is published · w3086+1.92

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quiet · w2474+2.30

The lateness the vendor will put in writing, and the conditions under which it declines to execute · w1867−0.58

Net8069+11.0

For your setup

Find out if TukTuk (Helium) fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where TukTuk (Helium) 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

TukTuk (Helium) 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 8 · weight 28Report an errorwww.tuktuk.funProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether the job survives the vendor: who else can turn the crank, and what end-of-life is publishedstrength 8 · weight 30Report an errorwww.tuktuk.funProvider's own page14 Aug 2026CurrentVerified

Whether a run that never happened is visible, or the job just goes quietstrength 7 · weight 24Report an errorwww.tuktuk.funProvider'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 errorwww.tuktuk.funProvider'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: Creators of Task Queues set their payment per-crank turn in SOL. Crankers that run the tasks are paid out in SOL for each crank they complete. There is a minimum deposit of 1 SOL to create a task queue to discourage spam. This deposit is refunded when the task queue is closed.TukTuk (Helium) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Prices published in: USDTukTuk (Helium) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 Aug 2026
Licences held: Not published
Compliance level: partial
Regulatory note: Not published
Supported chains: solana
Markets served: global
Primary markets: Not published
Restricted markets: Not published
Operating limits: Not published
Availability note: Global, and unrestricted in the strict sense — re-verified 2026-08-14 against the vendor's own availability prose, of which there is none. TukTuk is an onchain Solana program plus Apache-2.0 crates; there is no account, no signup, no KYC and no vendor-side gate between the buyer and execution. Buyers interact by sending a QueueTaskV0 instruction from any Solana keypair, and executors run `cargo install tuktuk-crank-turner` from crates.io. A full-corpus text search across all 23 live tuktuk.fun pages returns ZERO occurrences of 'jurisdiction', 'restricted', 'prohibited', 'KYC', 'sanction', 'terms of service', 'privacy policy' or 'acceptable use'. No such document exists to restrict anyone: https://www.tuktuk.fun/terms and https://www.tuktuk.fun/privacy both return HTTP 404, and neither is linked from the homepage or /docs. The repository tree (359 entries) carries only LICENSE (Apache-2.0) and README.md — no SECURITY.md, no CONTRIBUTING.md, no terms. The one caution the vendor does publish is not geographic: 'Smart contracts currently being audited. Use at your own risk.' (https://www.tuktuk.fun/). Chain scope, not geography, is the real limit: Solana only. Mainnet-beta is verified onchain above; a devnet feature flag exists in the program manifests (https://github.com/helium/tuktuk/blob/main/solana-programs/programs/cron/Cargo.toml) but no non-Solana deployment is claimed or found anywhere.

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 80, #1 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:tuktuk: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.