Uniswap scores 35 points above Velodrome on the published criteria (30 vs 16.6 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Uniswap ranks #1 and Velodrome #5 of 12 published DEXs. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Uniswap84
vs
Velodrome49
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #1 and #5 of 12
Uniswap scores 35 points above Velodrome on the published criteria (30 vs 16.6 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
Uniswap #1 of 1284
Velodrome #5 of 1249
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termUniswap leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; Velodrome on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermUniswapVelodromeWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension3016.630+34.8for Uniswap
Net of the terms+34.8
Reproduced gap+34.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8449+35.0
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.
UniswapScore 84The reference AMM — concentrated liquidity, immutable core, deeply auditedStrength: Immutable, battle-tested core contractsWatch-out: Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the rangeVelodromeScore 49The OP Superchain liquidity layer — ve(3,3), the protocol Aerodrome forked fromStrength: OP Superchain liquidity (Optimism + OP-stack L2s)Watch-out: ve(3,3) emissions/bribe dynamics reward active voters; passive LPs may capture less
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 4 rows read the same for both.
FactUniswapVelodrome
Trading feeSnapshotSwap fee: "Uniswap v2 has a single fee: 0.30% on every pool." and "The standard v3 tiers are 0.05%, 0.30%, and 1%." (Uniswap developer docs, Fees page, read 3 November 2026); v4 pools set their own fee. AMM: concentrated liquidity (v3/v4). Since 2018. 45 chains. UNI DAO governance; core contracts immutable. Extensively audited (a 2020 v1 reentrancy loss and a 2022 phishing campaign against users are recorded as incidents). Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama), not scored.Swap fee: "The default trading fees for both liquidity pool types are 0.02%, and can be individually adjusted for each pool up to 1%." (Velodrome docs, Liquidity page, read 3 November 2026); concentrated pools set fees independently. ve(3,3) vote-escrow AMM. Since 2022. OP Superchain. veVELO governance. Audited (2023 and 2025 front-end DNS hijacks are recorded as incidents). Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama), not scored.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
Uniswap leads on no published criterion; its edge is published criteria (30 vs 16.6 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
Strength
Immutable, battle-tested core contracts
Tradeoff
Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the range
Velodrome
49#5 of 12
Pick it when
Velodrome leads Uniswap 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
OP Superchain liquidity (Optimism + OP-stack L2s)
Tradeoff
ve(3,3) emissions/bribe dynamics reward active voters; passive LPs may capture less
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
UniswapLeads
Uniswap leads Velodrome on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
UniswapScore 84The reference AMM — concentrated liquidity, immutable core, deeply auditedStrength: Immutable, battle-tested core contractsWatch-out: Concentrated-liquidity LPing carries impermanent-loss risk if you misjudge the range
Velodrome
Velodrome leads Uniswap on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
VelodromeScore 49The OP Superchain liquidity layer — ve(3,3), the protocol Aerodrome forked fromStrength: OP Superchain liquidity (Optimism + OP-stack L2s)Watch-out: ve(3,3) emissions/bribe dynamics reward active voters; passive LPs may capture less
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
UniswapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
VelodromeNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Decentralization
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
UniswapNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
VelodromeNot 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
Uniswap14/20Velodrome14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Uniswap30/30Velodrome16.6/30
Uniswap leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Uniswap2.7/10Velodrome2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Uniswap3.2/8Velodrome3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Uniswap5.5/18Velodrome5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Uniswap unless the term Velodrome leads on is the one you are buying.
Velodrome leads Uniswap 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
Uniswap scores 35 points above Velodrome on the published criteria (30 vs 16.6 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: Uniswap 84 (rank 1 of 12 dexs), Velodrome 49 (rank 5 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
