LI.FI (Jumper) and ParaSwap tie on score at 59; the published tie-break orders them. ParaSwap ranks #11 and LI.FI (Jumper) #10 of 11 published DEX aggregators. The ledger below shows where each side is ahead — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
ParaSwap59
vs
LI.FI (Jumper)59
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #11 and #10 of 11
Published verdictRanking snapshot 12 November 2026
Same published score — 59 each
LI.FI (Jumper) and ParaSwap tie on score at 59; the published tie-break orders them.
ParaSwap #11 of 1159
LI.FI (Jumper) #10 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 termLI.FI (Jumper) leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; ParaSwap on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermLI.FI (Jumper)ParaSwapWeightPoints
No published term separates the two — every criterion cell and every score dimension is equal.
Net of the terms0.0
Reproduced gap0.0
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.
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 weighLI.FI (Jumper)Score 59Cross-chain swap + bridge aggregator — extensively audited, but a 2024 router exploitStrength: Cross-chain swaps + bridging in one routeWatch-out: A July-2024 smart-contract exploit drained ~$10M+ from users with infinite approvals to an affected facet — a real router-level flaw; use limited …
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactParaSwapLI.FI (Jumper)
Trading feeSnapshot0.15% taker · read 3 November 2026 · source 0.25% taker · read 3 November 2026 · source
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotUnited States, Europe, GlobalUnited States, Europe, Global
Custody modelSnapshotSelf-custodialSelf-custodial
Security postureSnapshotAudited; admin-controlled contracts; partly open source; a router-level exploit that lost user funds (2024, rated moderate).Extensively audited; upgradeable contracts; partly open source; a router-level exploit that lost user funds (2024, rated severe).
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
ParaSwap
Published score 59 #11 of 11
Pick it when
ParaSwap leads LI.FI (Jumper) 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
LI.FI (Jumper)
Published score 59 #10 of 11
Pick it when
LI.FI (Jumper) leads ParaSwap 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
Cross-chain swaps + bridging in one route
Tradeoff
A July-2024 smart-contract exploit drained ~$10M+ from users with infinite approvals to an affected facet — a real router-level flaw; use limited …
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
ParaSwap
ParaSwap leads LI.FI (Jumper) 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
LI.FI (Jumper)
LI.FI (Jumper) 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.
LI.FI (Jumper)Score 59Cross-chain swap + bridge aggregator — extensively audited, but a 2024 router exploitStrength: Cross-chain swaps + bridging in one routeWatch-out: A July-2024 smart-contract exploit drained ~$10M+ from users with infinite approvals to an affected facet — a real router-level flaw; use limited …
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
ParaSwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
LI.FI (Jumper)Not scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Trust
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
ParaSwapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
LI.FI (Jumper)Not 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
ParaSwap14/20LI.FI (Jumper)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
ParaSwap18.1/30LI.FI (Jumper)18.1/30
Tie
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
ParaSwap2.7/10LI.FI (Jumper)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
ParaSwap3.2/8LI.FI (Jumper)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
ParaSwap5.5/18LI.FI (Jumper)5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Same published score — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
ParaSwap leads LI.FI (Jumper) on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
LI.FI (Jumper) leads ParaSwap 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
LI.FI (Jumper) and ParaSwap tie on score at 59; the published tie-break orders them. Published scores, out of 100: ParaSwap 59 (rank 11 of 11 dex aggregators), LI.FI (Jumper) 59 (rank 10 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
