Matcha (0x) vs KyberSwap Matcha (0x) leads by 16 points.
Matcha (0x) scores 16 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (27.2 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Matcha (0x) ranks #1 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.
Matcha (0x)83
vs
KyberSwap67
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #1 and #6 of 11
Published verdictRanking snapshot 12 November 2026
Matcha (0x) leads by 16 points
Matcha (0x) scores 16 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (27.2 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
Matcha (0x) #1 of 1183
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 termMatcha (0x) 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.
TermMatcha (0x)KyberSwapWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension27.221.230+15.6for Matcha (0x)
Net of the terms+15.6
Reproduced gap+15.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8367+16.0
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.
Matcha (0x)Score 83Built on 0x — RFQ private fills, extensively auditedStrength: Foundational 0x infrastructure, extensively auditedWatch-out: RFQ pricing depends on professional market makers quoting — a different trust model than pure onchain routingKyberSwapScore 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.
FactMatcha (0x)KyberSwap
Trading feeSnapshot0.25% 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?
Matcha (0x)
Published score 83 #1 of 11
Leads
Pick it when
Matcha (0x) leads on no published criterion; its edge is published criteria (27.2 vs 21.2 points). That is a part of the score outside the published criteria; pick it if that part decides for you.
RFQ pricing depends on professional market makers quoting — a different trust model than pure onchain routing
KyberSwap
Published score 67 #6 of 11
Pick it when
KyberSwap leads Matcha (0x) 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?
Matcha (0x)Leads
Matcha (0x) 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.
Matcha (0x)Score 83Built on 0x — RFQ private fills, extensively auditedStrength: Foundational 0x infrastructure, extensively auditedWatch-out: RFQ pricing depends on professional market makers quoting — a different trust model than pure onchain routing
KyberSwap
KyberSwap leads Matcha (0x) 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
Matcha (0x)Not 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
Matcha (0x)Not 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
Matcha (0x)14/20KyberSwap14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Matcha (0x)27.2/30KyberSwap21.2/30
Matcha (0x) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Matcha (0x)2.7/10KyberSwap2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Matcha (0x)3.2/8KyberSwap3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Matcha (0x)5.5/18KyberSwap5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Matcha (0x) unless the term KyberSwap leads on is the one you are buying.
KyberSwap leads Matcha (0x) 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
Matcha (0x) scores 16 points above KyberSwap on the published criteria (27.2 vs 21.2 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: Matcha (0x) 83 (rank 1 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
