Orca scores 7 points above Osmosis on the published criteria (17.9 vs 15.5 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Orca ranks #3 and Osmosis #8 of 12 published DEXs. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orca53
vs
Osmosis46
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #3 and #8 of 12
Orca scores 7 points above Osmosis on the published criteria (17.9 vs 15.5 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
Orca #3 of 1253
Osmosis #8 of 1246
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termOrca leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; Osmosis on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermOrcaOsmosisWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension17.915.530+6.2for Orca
Net of the terms+6.2
Reproduced gap+6.2
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5346+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.
OrcaScore 53Solana's leading concentrated-liquidity DEX — Whirlpools, clean recordStrength: Solana concentrated liquidity (Whirlpools)Watch-out: Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the rangeOsmosisScore 46The Cosmos DEX — IBC-native, sovereign app-chain AMMStrength: Cosmos / IBC-connected asset swapsWatch-out: A June-2022 LP-math bug was exploited for ~$5M and halted the chain ~2 days — reserve-covered, but a real mark on its record
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 4 rows read the same for both.
FactOrcaOsmosis
PricingSnapshotSwap fee: set per pool by tick spacing, from "0.01%" to "2.00%"; standard volatile pairs pay "0.30%" (Orca docs, docs.orca.so/llms.txt Fee Tiers table, read 3 November 2026); Adaptive Fee pools rise in volatile markets. Concentrated liquidity (Whirlpools). Since 2021. Solana (Eclipse trading and deposits permanently disabled since March 2026). ORCA governance. Audited. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama), not scored.Swap fee: each pool sets a spread factor, plus a protocol taker fee: "Osmosis charges a small taker fee on all trades with a 0.1% default." (Osmosis docs, OSMO token page, read 3 November 2026); major routes pay less ("BTC/USDC pays 0.02% in either direction") and "selling OSMO for USDC pays 0.8%". Sovereign Cosmos app-chain AMM (weighted + concentrated pools). Since 2021. OSMO governance. Audited. One LP-share accounting exploit in June 2022. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama), not scored.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
Security postureSnapshotAudited; upgradeable contracts.Audited; upgradeable contracts; a major exploit in its protocol history (2022, rated moderate).
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orca
53#3 of 12
Leads
Pick it when
Orca leads on no published criterion; its edge is published criteria (17.9 vs 15.5 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
Strength
Solana concentrated liquidity (Whirlpools)
Tradeoff
Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the range
Osmosis
46#8 of 12
Pick it when
Osmosis leads Orca 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
Cosmos / IBC-connected asset swaps
Tradeoff
A June-2022 LP-math bug was exploited for ~$5M and halted the chain ~2 days — reserve-covered, but a real mark on its record
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
OrcaLeads
Orca leads Osmosis on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
OrcaScore 53Solana's leading concentrated-liquidity DEX — Whirlpools, clean recordStrength: Solana concentrated liquidity (Whirlpools)Watch-out: Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the range
Osmosis
Osmosis leads Orca on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
OsmosisScore 46The Cosmos DEX — IBC-native, sovereign app-chain AMMStrength: Cosmos / IBC-connected asset swapsWatch-out: A June-2022 LP-math bug was exploited for ~$5M and halted the chain ~2 days — reserve-covered, but a real mark on its 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
OrcaNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
OsmosisNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Decentralization
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
OrcaNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
OsmosisNot 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
Orca14/20Osmosis14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orca17.9/30Osmosis15.5/30
Orca leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orca2.7/10Osmosis2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Orca3.2/8Osmosis3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Orca5.5/18Osmosis5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orca unless the term Osmosis leads on is the one you are buying.
Osmosis leads Orca 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 Decentralization & trust-minimization · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: Oracle 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
Orca scores 7 points above Osmosis on the published criteria (17.9 vs 15.5 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: Orca 53 (rank 3 of 12 dexs), Osmosis 46 (rank 8 of 12).
ReviewedRe-read in progressOverdue; re-read by 10 November 2026.Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed
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
