Matcha scores 10 points above Jupiter, led by operating style. Jupiter ranks #6 and Matcha #3 of 10 published Web3 apps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Jupiter59
vs
Matcha69
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #3 of 10
Matcha scores 10 points above Jupiter, led by operating style.
Jupiter #6 of 1059
Matcha #3 of 1069
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termMatcha leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Jupiter on 2. The terms sum to the gap.
TermMatchaJupiterWeightPoints
Ecosystem6/109/105.8−4.5for Jupiter−2.3 of 32
Confidence4/106/105.8−3.0for Jupiter−1.5 of 32
Operating style9/105/105.3+5.5for Matcha+2.8 of 32
Trust recordScore dimension5.63.28+6.2for Matcha
FrictionScore dimension4.72.710+5.2for Matcha
Net of the terms+9.4
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.2
Reproduced gap+9.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6959+10.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Matcha's lead rests on lighter criteria: Jupiter is ahead on ecosystem, which carries more weight (24) than any criterion Matcha leads on (22).
A row-above bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
MatchaScore 69Cleaner route-aware swap app for users who want smart execution without extra noiseStrength: Operating style — 9/10Watch-out: Less useful if your actual app life is Solana-nativeJupiterScore 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.
FactJupiterMatcha
Swap spreadSnapshotJupiter 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.Matcha's help article "Are there any fees to make a trade?" (help.matcha.xyz, last updated about a month before the 30 September 2026 fetch) lists: "Matcha Auto 0.25% swap fee for most pairs · No fee for stablecoin-to-stablecoin pairs", with gas built into the quote; Matcha Standard "A flat 25 bps (0.25%) swap fee applies to most pairs, and network gas fees also apply", with no fee between two stablecoins; limit orders "0.02%" for stablecoin pairs and "0.25%" for others; cross-chain swaps "0.04%" stablecoin to stablecoin and "0.40%" for all other pairs, plus gas. The rates apply on every supported chain, Solana included. Matcha may also keep part of any trade surplus and earn order-flow-auction rebates, but "you will never receive less than your quoted amount".
Asset coverageEditorialSolana-native swap assets and ecosystem executionRoute-aware token swapping across supported EVM and Solana assets
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 Matcha's 6/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Ecosystem — 9/10
Tradeoff
Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
Matcha
69#3 of 10
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Matcha if operating style matters most — it scores 9/10 to Jupiter's 5/10 there (weight 22).
Strength
Operating style — 9/10
Tradeoff
Less useful if your actual app life is Solana-native
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Jupiter
Choose Jupiter if ecosystem matters most
Ecosystem: 9/10 against 6/10 for Matcha (weight 24)
Confidence: 6/10 against 4/10 for Matcha (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
MatchaLeads
Choose Matcha if operating style matters most
Operating style: 9/10 against 5/10 for Jupiter (weight 22)
MatchaScore 69Cleaner route-aware swap app for users who want smart execution without extra noiseStrength: Operating style — 9/10Watch-out: Less useful if your actual app life is Solana-native
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
Matcha8/10 out of 10
Ecosystem
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jupiter leads
Jupiter9/10 out of 10
Matcha6/10 out of 10
Operating style
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Matcha leads
Jupiter5/10 out of 10
Matcha9/10 out of 10
Confidence
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jupiter leads
Jupiter6/10 out of 10
Matcha4/10 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
Jupiter20/20Matcha20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Jupiter17/30Matcha16.3/30
Jupiter leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86
Jupiter2.7/10Matcha4.7/10
Matcha leads
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Jupiter3.2/8Matcha5.6/8
Matcha leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter6.9/18Matcha6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Matcha unless the term Jupiter leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Jupiter if ecosystem matters most — it scores 9/10 to Matcha's 6/10 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
Matcha scores 10 points above Jupiter, led by operating style. Published scores, out of 100: Jupiter 59 (rank 6 of 10 web3 apps), Matcha 69 (rank 3 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
