Jupiter vs ENS (Ethereum Name Service) ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads by 6 points.
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) scores 6 points above Jupiter, led by confidence and operating style. Jupiter ranks #6 and ENS (Ethereum Name Service) #4 of 10 published Web3 apps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Jupiter59
vs
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)65
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #4 of 10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) scores 6 points above Jupiter, led by confidence and operating style.
Jupiter #6 of 1059
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) #4 of 1065
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Jupiter on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermENS (Ethereum Name Service)JupiterWeightPoints
Ecosystem7/109/105.8−3.0for Jupiter−1.5 of 32
Confidence7/106/105.8+1.5for ENS (Ethereum Name Service)+0.8 of 32
Operating style8/105/105.3+4.1for ENS (Ethereum Name Service)+2.1 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension142020−15.6for Jupiter
FrictionScore dimension6.72.710+10.4for ENS (Ethereum Name Service)
Trust recordScore dimension6.43.28+8.3for ENS (Ethereum Name Service)
Net of the terms+5.7
Reproduced gap+5.7
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6559+6.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)Score 65Onchain identity — human-readable .eth names for wallets and dappsStrength: Job fit — 8/10Watch-out: Ethereum-native; resolution outside the Ethereum ecosystem varies by appJupiterScore 59Solana-native app for swap routing and ecosystem-first activityStrength: Ecosystem — 9/10Watch-out: Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactJupiterENS (Ethereum Name Service)
PricingSnapshotJupiter Spot routes swaps through Ultra Mode by default ("By default, Spot uses Jupiter Ultra to execute trades."), and Ultra charges a Jupiter commission: the Jupiter Spot Fees page (docs.jup.ag, fetched 30 September 2026) lists "Ultra Mode 0-0.5%", varying by pair and volatility. The Ultra Mode page (same date) tables it: "0%" on stable-to-stable, LST-to-LST and SOL/stable into JUP, JLP or jupSOL; "SOL ↔ Stable 0.02%"; LST to stable "0.05%"; "All other swaps 0.1%"; and "0.5%" for buying or selling tokens within 24h of launch. Manual Mode (Market Swap) is "0%": "Manual swaps do not incur any Jupiter commission". Fees are included in the quote shown before confirming. Solana network fees (not charged by Jupiter) apply, plus Jito tips if chosen in Manual Mode; gasless trades add the SOL gas Jupiter pays to the swap fee, with no margin. Swaps inside the Jupiter Mobile app follow a separate schedule.ENS documentation FAQ (docs.ens.domains/faq, fetched 30 September 2026): "5+ character .eth names: $5 in ETH per year. 4 character .eth names: $160 in ETH per year. 3 character .eth names: $640 in ETH per year." The fee is paid in ETH at registration and renewal, plus Ethereum gas, and "There is no maximum registration duration." After expiry there is a 90-day grace period, then a 21-day temporary-premium Dutch auction before anyone can register the name (ETH Registrar docs, same date). No other platform fee appears on the pages read.
Asset coverageEditorialSolana-native swap assets and ecosystem executionOnchain names / identity records (not a trading or custody app)
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Jupiter
59#6 of 10
Pick it when
Pick Jupiter if ecosystem matters most — it scores 9/10 to ENS (Ethereum Name Service)'s 7/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Ecosystem — 9/10
Tradeoff
Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)
65#4 of 10
Leads
Pick it when
Pick ENS (Ethereum Name Service) if confidence matters most — it scores 7/10 to Jupiter's 6/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Job fit — 8/10
Tradeoff
Ethereum-native; resolution outside the Ethereum ecosystem varies by app
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Jupiter
Choose Jupiter if ecosystem matters most
Ecosystem: 9/10 against 7/10 for ENS (Ethereum Name Service) (weight 24)
JupiterScore 59Solana-native app for swap routing and ecosystem-first activityStrength: Ecosystem — 9/10Watch-out: Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)Leads
Choose ENS (Ethereum Name Service) if confidence matters most
Confidence: 7/10 against 6/10 for Jupiter (weight 24)
Operating style: 8/10 against 5/10 for Jupiter (weight 22)
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)Score 65Onchain identity — human-readable .eth names for wallets and dappsStrength: Job fit — 8/10Watch-out: Ethereum-native; resolution outside the Ethereum ecosystem varies by app
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Job fit
weight 7.2 of 86Tie
Jupiter8/10 out of 10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)8/10 out of 10
Ecosystem
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jupiter leads
Jupiter9/10 out of 10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)7/10 out of 10
Operating style
by 3 of 10weight 5.3 of 86ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads
Jupiter5/10 out of 10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)8/10 out of 10
Confidence
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads
Jupiter6/10 out of 10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service)7/10 out of 10
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
Jupiter20/20ENS (Ethereum Name Service)14/20
Jupiter leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Jupiter17/30ENS (Ethereum Name Service)18/30
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86
Jupiter2.7/10ENS (Ethereum Name Service)6.7/10
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Jupiter3.2/8ENS (Ethereum Name Service)6.4/8
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter6.9/18ENS (Ethereum Name Service)6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose ENS (Ethereum Name Service) unless the term Jupiter leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Jupiter if ecosystem matters most — it scores 9/10 to ENS (Ethereum Name Service)'s 7/10 there (weight 24).
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
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%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
ENS (Ethereum Name Service) scores 6 points above Jupiter, led by confidence and operating style. Published scores, out of 100: Jupiter 59 (rank 6 of 10 web3 apps), ENS (Ethereum Name Service) 65 (rank 4 of 10).
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
