Jupiter scores 4 points above Raydium, led by job fit and operating style. Jupiter ranks #6 and Raydium #7 of 10 published Web3 apps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Jupiter59
vs
Raydium55
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #7 of 10
Jupiter scores 4 points above Raydium, led by job fit and operating style.
Jupiter #6 of 1059
Raydium #7 of 1055
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 2 of 4 published criteria; Raydium on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermJupiterRaydiumWeightPoints
Job fit8/106/107.2+3.7for Jupiter+1.9 of 32
Operating style5/104/105.3+1.4for Jupiter+0.7 of 32
Net of the terms+5.1
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+4.9
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5955+4.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
JupiterScore 59Solana-native app for swap routing and ecosystem-first activityStrength: Ecosystem — 9/10Watch-out: Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavyRaydiumScore 55Solana-native swap app for users who want a more active ecosystem fitStrength: Ecosystem — 9/10Watch-out: Less broadly understandable than the clearest mainstream app defaults
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactJupiterRaydium
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.Raydium's FAQ (docs.raydium.io/getting-started/faq, fetched 30 September 2026): "Trading fee: 0.25% on most pools (some tiers offer 0.01%, 0.05%, or 1%). Split between LPs and protocol. Charged on every swap." and "Network fee: ~0.0005-0.002 SOL (a few cents) for the Solana transaction itself." Two add-ons can raise the total: a Token-2022 token with a transfer fee compounds on top of the pool fee, and a CPMM pool may charge a separate creator fee. Worked example from the CPMM fees page (same date): a 0.25% trade fee plus a 0.10% creator fee "charges a combined 0.35% of the input". Raydium's own router takes no fee; each hop pays its pool's fee.
Asset coverageEditorialSolana-native swap assets and ecosystem executionSolana-native swap assets and ecosystem DeFi execution
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Jupiter
59#6 of 10
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Jupiter if job fit matters most — it scores 8/10 to Raydium's 6/10 there (weight 30).
Strength
Ecosystem — 9/10
Tradeoff
Less useful if your main onchain activity is EVM-heavy
Raydium
55#7 of 10
Pick it when
Raydium 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
Ecosystem — 9/10
Tradeoff
Less broadly understandable than the clearest mainstream app defaults
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
JupiterLeads
Choose Jupiter if job fit matters most
Job fit: 8/10 against 6/10 for Raydium (weight 30)
Operating style: 5/10 against 4/10 for Raydium (weight 22)
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
Raydium
Raydium 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.
RaydiumScore 55Solana-native swap app for users who want a more active ecosystem fitStrength: Ecosystem — 9/10Watch-out: Less broadly understandable than the clearest mainstream app defaults
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
by 2 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Jupiter leads
Jupiter8/10 out of 10
Raydium6/10 out of 10
Ecosystem
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
Jupiter9/10 out of 10
Raydium9/10 out of 10
Operating style
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Jupiter leads
Jupiter5/10 out of 10
Raydium4/10 out of 10
Confidence
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
Jupiter6/10 out of 10
Raydium6/10 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
Jupiter20/20Raydium20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Jupiter17/30Raydium15.1/30
Jupiter leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86
Jupiter2.7/10Raydium2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Jupiter3.2/8Raydium3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Jupiter6.9/18Raydium6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Jupiter unless the term Raydium leads on is the one you are buying.
Raydium 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
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
Jupiter scores 4 points above Raydium, led by job fit and operating style. Published scores, out of 100: Jupiter 59 (rank 6 of 10 web3 apps), Raydium 55 (rank 7 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
