Jupiter scores 7 points above ParaSwap on the published criteria (20.5 vs 18.1 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Jupiter ranks #8 and ParaSwap #11 of 11 published DEX aggregators. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Jupiter66
vs
ParaSwap59
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #8 and #11 of 11
Published verdictRanking snapshot 12 November 2026
Jupiter leads by 7 points
Jupiter scores 7 points above ParaSwap on the published criteria (20.5 vs 18.1 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
Jupiter #8 of 1166
ParaSwap #11 of 1159
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termJupiter leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; ParaSwap 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.
TermJupiterParaSwapWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension20.518.130+6.2for Jupiter
Net of the terms+6.2
Reproduced gap+6.2
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6659+7.0
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.
A row-above bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
JupiterScore 66Solana's dominant aggregator — MEV Protect via JitoStrength: Default aggregator for Solana liquidityWatch-out: Solana-only (SVM) — not for EVM-chain swapsParaSwapScore 59Multi-chain aggregator (now Velora) — router exploited in 2024Strength: Long-running multi-chain aggregationWatch-out: The Augustus v6 router had a critical vulnerability in March 2024 (mostly white-hat-rescued, contract retired) — a real router-level flaw to weigh
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactJupiterParaSwap
Trading feeSnapshot0.1% taker · read 3 November 2026 · source 0.15% taker · read 3 November 2026 · source
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotUnited States, Europe, GlobalUnited States, Europe, Global
Custody modelSnapshotSelf-custodialSelf-custodial
Security postureSnapshotAudited; upgradeable contracts; closed source.Audited; admin-controlled contracts; partly open source; a router-level exploit that lost user funds (2024, rated moderate).
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Jupiter
Published score 66 #8 of 11
Leads
Pick it when
Jupiter leads on no published criterion; its edge is published criteria (20.5 vs 18.1 points). That is a part of the score outside the published criteria; pick it if that part decides for you.
Strength
Default aggregator for Solana liquidity
Tradeoff
Solana-only (SVM) — not for EVM-chain swaps
ParaSwap
Published score 59 #11 of 11
Pick it when
ParaSwap leads Jupiter 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
Long-running multi-chain aggregation
Tradeoff
The Augustus v6 router had a critical vulnerability in March 2024 (mostly white-hat-rescued, contract retired) — a real router-level flaw to weigh
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
JupiterLeads
Jupiter leads ParaSwap on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
JupiterScore 66Solana's dominant aggregator — MEV Protect via JitoStrength: Default aggregator for Solana liquidityWatch-out: Solana-only (SVM) — not for EVM-chain swaps
ParaSwap
ParaSwap leads Jupiter on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
ParaSwapScore 59Multi-chain aggregator (now Velora) — router exploited in 2024Strength: Long-running multi-chain aggregationWatch-out: The Augustus v6 router had a critical vulnerability in March 2024 (mostly white-hat-rescued, contract retired) — a real router-level flaw to weigh
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
JupiterNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
ParaSwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Trust
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
JupiterNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
ParaSwapNot 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
Jupiter14/20ParaSwap14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Jupiter20.5/30ParaSwap18.1/30
Jupiter leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter2.7/10ParaSwap2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter3.2/8ParaSwap3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter5.5/18ParaSwap5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Jupiter unless the term ParaSwap leads on is the one you are buying.
ParaSwap leads Jupiter 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
Jupiter scores 7 points above ParaSwap on the published criteria (20.5 vs 18.1 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: Jupiter 66 (rank 8 of 11 dex aggregators), ParaSwap 59 (rank 11 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
