Provider at a glance
- Category
- Yield Vaults
- Entity
- All 3 Yearn products
- Official website
- yearn.fi
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 82 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in November 2026.
Yearn (v3)
Yield vault protocol
Yield Vaults
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 yield vaults in the published ranking
82
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $160 commission/yr
Is Yearn (v3) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Mandate accountability7/10, the category best
- Exit mechanics under stress6/10, the category best
- Strategy risk honesty7/10, the category best
- Fee transparency8/10, the category best
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 crypto yield vault shows where it lands for you.
What will Yearn (v3) cost you?
$160 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Performance fee on earnings
- 10%
How safe is Yearn (v3)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read November 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Yearn (v3)
Compare all 4- 2Morpho Vaults1 point below · weaker on fee transparency (7 against 8)81
- 3Beefy5 points below · weaker on strategy risk (5 against 7)77
- 4Fluid Lite6 points below · weaker on strategy risk (4 against 7)76$320
For your setup
Find out if Yearn (v3) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Yearn (v3) 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 crypto yield vaultNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Yearn (v3) 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 (22.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on every criterion.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
307+6.726.07#1/7Loading evidence…
266+4.995.06#1/7Loading evidence…
247+5.384.07#1/7Loading evidence…
208+5.127.08#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+1over Morpho Vaults, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81–83 and ranks #1–#2
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 Yearn (v3)’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.
Mandate accountability 7 → 6 on its ladder · Morpho Vaults passes it−181#1 → #2
Exit mechanics under stress 6 → 5 on its ladder · Morpho Vaults passes it−181#1 → #2
Strategy risk honesty 7 → 6 on its ladder · Morpho Vaults passes it−182#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Mandate accountability — 7/10, the category best
- Exit mechanics under stress — 6/10, the category best
- Strategy risk honesty — 7/10, the category best
- Fee transparency — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- TVL is ~4% of its 2021 peak — less scrutiny per long-tail vault than the brand implies
- The 2021 and 2023 exploits hit legacy products that stayed reachable long after deprecation; Yearn’s YIP-90 records a further yETH exploit
- Fees are per-vault — verify the live figure rather than assuming 10%
Competitive position
Where Yearn (v3) 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 / 720.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#1 / 716.7 of 30 · pool best
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 Yearn (v3) leads
- Mandate accountability#1 / 7
- Exit mechanics under stress#1 / 7
- Strategy risk honesty#1 / 7
- Fee transparency#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.
Morpho Vaults#2 of 7 · score 81 · 1.0 point behind
Yearn (v3) leads on
- Fee transparency8 vs 7
Morpho Vaults leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Yearn (v3) is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Morpho Vaults has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Beefy#3 of 7 · score 77 · 5.0 points behind
Yearn (v3) leads on
- Mandate accountability7 vs 6
- Strategy risk honesty7 vs 5
Beefy leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Yearn (v3) is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Beefy has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fluid Lite#4 of 7 · score 76 · 6.0 points behind
Yearn (v3) leads on
- Exit mechanics under stress6 vs 5
- Strategy risk honesty7 vs 4
Fluid Lite leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Yearn (v3) is ahead: published criteria (+6.2 display points).Scenario cost: Fluid Lite is +$160 against Yearn (v3).
Against #2
82 vs 81 · gap 1.0Why Yearn (v3) ranks above Morpho Vaults
DimensionThisMorpho VaultsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.716.2+1.3, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisMorpho VaultsPoints
Fee transparency · w2087+0.64, better
Net8281+1.0
Your scenario
What Yearn (v3) costs on your scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Performance fee on earnings · published rate10%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 3 November 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$160
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 2 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
5 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 3 November 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 #1 to #2 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Mandate accountabilitystrength 7 · weight 30Report an error—3 November 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.Exit mechanics under stressstrength 6 · weight 26Report an error—3 November 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.Strategy risk honestystrength 7 · weight 24Report an error—3 November 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.Fee transparencystrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—3 November 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
- Contract failure (Yearn (v3) 7/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Strategy risk honesty · 24%
- Control failure (Yearn (v3) 7/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Mandate accountability · 30%
- Exit failure (Yearn (v3) 6/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit mechanics under stress · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Fee transparency (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Yearn's yVaults overview (docs.yearn.fi, read 3 November 2026): vaults "had 20% performance fees and 2% management fees, but this has changed and yVaults now have a dynamic fee structure." It adds: "For vaults deployed by the vault factory the performance fee is 10% instead of 20%." and "Single asset vaults generally have no management fee." Yield on yearn.fi "is displayed as net APY", so fees are already netted out. Fees are per vault; check the specific vault's live fee display. Worked tally (Yearn's ydaemon API, read 3 November 2026): of 24 v3 Ethereum vaults with at least a hundred thousand dollars deposited, 14 charge a 10% performance fee, 10 charge none, and none charges a management fee.Yearn vault documentation ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDYearn vault documentation ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Polygon, other L2s
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global onchain depositors
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Permissionless; strategy roles and allocations are governed onchain.
- Availability note
- Permissionless onchain protocol. Yearn's user FAQ (docs.yearn.fi, read 3 November 2026) says the website "may not work. If that happens, you can interact with the underlying contracts directly with a block explorer like Etherscan ." No country restriction is stated on the Yearn docs pages read; Yearn's terms page (yearn.fi/terms) renders only in a browser and was not read.
Legal entity on file: Yearn, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Yearn (v3): 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.
9 methodology entries
- 3 November 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 82, #1 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 yield_vaults:yearn:2026.10.18:b64ac191d192
Are you Yearn (v3)? 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.