CoW Swap scores 9 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (24.5 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. CoW Swap ranks #3 and KyberSwap #6 of 11 published DEX aggregators. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
CoW Swap76
vs
KyberSwap67
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #3 and #6 of 11
Published verdictRanking snapshot 12 November 2026
CoW Swap leads by 9 points
CoW Swap scores 9 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (24.5 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
CoW Swap #3 of 1176
KyberSwap #6 of 1167
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termCoW Swap leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; KyberSwap on 0. The two are level on every published criterion: the whole gap is in the score dimensions below. The terms sum to the gap.
TermCoW SwapKyberSwapWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension24.521.230+8.6for CoW Swap
Net of the terms+8.6
Reproduced gap+8.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7667+9.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
This ranking scores its published criteria from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion, so they count here as one term and no single criterion is credited.
CoW SwapScore 76Batch auctions with bonded, allowlisted solvers — MEV-protected by designStrength: MEV protection by design (batch auctions)Watch-out: Solver onboarding requires KYC, a bond and allowlisting by the allowlist contract's manager, even though price competition among active solvers is openKyberSwapScore 67Multi-chain aggregator across 17 EVM chains — router cleanStrength: Aggregation across 18 EVM chainsWatch-out: A separate KyberSwap product (Elastic AMM) suffered a ~$48.7M exploit in Nov 2023 — the aggregator router was not affected, but weigh the team’s overall record
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactCoW SwapKyberSwap
Trading feeSnapshot0.02% taker · read 3 November 2026 · source 0% taker plus swap fees, slippage and network gas · read 3 November 2026 · source
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotUnited States, Europe, GlobalUnited States, Europe, Global
Custody modelSnapshotSelf-custodialSelf-custodial
Security postureSnapshotExtensively audited; immutable core contracts; partly open source.Audited; admin-controlled contracts; partly open source.
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
CoW Swap
Published score 76 #3 of 11
Leads
Pick it when
CoW Swap leads on no published criterion; its edge is published criteria (24.5 vs 21.2 points). That is a part of the score outside the published criteria; pick it if that part decides for you.
Strength
MEV protection by design (batch auctions)
Tradeoff
Solver onboarding requires KYC, a bond and allowlisting by the allowlist contract's manager, even though price competition among active solvers is open
KyberSwap
Published score 67 #6 of 11
Pick it when
KyberSwap leads CoW Swap on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Aggregation across 18 EVM chains
Tradeoff
A separate KyberSwap product (Elastic AMM) suffered a ~$48.7M exploit in Nov 2023 — the aggregator router was not affected, but weigh the team’s overall record
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
CoW SwapLeads
CoW Swap leads KyberSwap on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
CoW SwapScore 76Batch auctions with bonded, allowlisted solvers — MEV-protected by designStrength: MEV protection by design (batch auctions)Watch-out: Solver onboarding requires KYC, a bond and allowlisting by the allowlist contract's manager, even though price competition among active solvers is open
KyberSwap
KyberSwap leads CoW Swap on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
KyberSwapScore 67Multi-chain aggregator across 17 EVM chains — router cleanStrength: Aggregation across 18 EVM chainsWatch-out: A separate KyberSwap product (Elastic AMM) suffered a ~$48.7M exploit in Nov 2023 — the aggregator router was not affected, but weigh the team’s overall record
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 860 of 4 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Security
weight 14.4 of 86Not scored
CoW SwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
KyberSwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Trust
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
CoW SwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
KyberSwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
CoW Swap14/20KyberSwap14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
CoW Swap24.5/30KyberSwap21.2/30
CoW Swap leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
CoW Swap2.7/10KyberSwap2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
CoW Swap3.2/8KyberSwap3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
CoW Swap5.5/18KyberSwap5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose CoW Swap unless the term KyberSwap leads on is the one you are buying.
KyberSwap leads CoW Swap on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.
Scored by Security & track record · 60%
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Trust-minimization · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
CoW Swap scores 9 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (24.5 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: CoW Swap 76 (rank 3 of 11 dex aggregators), KyberSwap 67 (rank 6 of 11).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
