route99.xyzroute

DEX aggregator rankings

Even the best aggregators miss more than 1 in 1,000 swaps. We grade them against your goals to reach 99.9% reliability.

Your setupAdvanced settings Show
Sets the API-cost term in the score: the cheapest published plan for each aggregator at this volume, free or paid. Off removes cost from the score.
Simulate every quote against live state and rank by verified output — this filters out no-quotes, sim failures and overquoting before anything is sent. Without it, sim-failure becomes revert rate.
Target: 99.9% chance at least one quote arrives in time.
A shortcut — or build your own set by clicking rows in the table below. More independent sources means one can cover another's misses.
RELIABILITY
99%
99.9% target
98.0%99.0%99.9%100%
How it's computedThe full math behind the number, step by step

Rankings for your setup

Enso's measured values, unchanged. Only the colour bands and score weights move with your setup. More redundancy relaxes no-quote and sim-failure. Without simulation, sim-failure grades as your revert rate. Click rows to build your set.

Aggregator Score1–10 · weighted No-quoteavailability Sim failurereverts Median lat.speed p95 lat.tail Overquoteprice holds Quote→fill gapavg drift Costbps
strong for this setup borderline weak for this setup META = meta-aggregator (routes across other aggregators/bridges, not direct DEX liquidity)
03

Reliability funnel.

Your selected set, traced gate by gate. Thin lines: each source draining as quotes fail to return, arrive late, or fail simulation. Bold line: the chance at least one survives. Redundancy is the gap between them.

Where quotes drop, and how redundancy recovers
combined (≥1 survives) each thin line = one source draining through the gates · combined = 1 − ∏(all fail) at each step
04

Every aggregator's shape.

Six dimensions at once; further out is better on every axis. Hover an axis label for its exact definition. Selected sources in colour, the rest of the field faint behind them.

Six execution dimensions, overlaid
05

Quote integrity: how often × how much.

Two views of one failure: a quoted price that does not hold. Horizontal: how often quotes are inflated. Vertical: how much fills drift. Bottom-left is honest and tight.

Overquote frequency × fill drift
selected — bold, larger unselected — smaller, gray dashed lines mark the green bands (1% · 0.5 bps) · axes clamp at the plot edge
Average overquote cost per trade

A little drift is normal: prices move in the milliseconds between quote and fill, so a few hundredths of a bp reflects latency, not padding. It becomes a cost signal past the 0.05 bps noise band.

within latency noise (≤0.05 bps) above noise (≤0.4 bps) costly (>0.4 bps) avg quote→fill drift in bps, priced per $1M swapped · shaded zone = latency noise (≤0.05 bps) · bold = in your set
06

Latency against your budget.

A quote only counts if it arrives in time. One source: its p95 must fit your budget. Several: the median is enough, because the fastest one covers. Chips show the share arriving in time.

Median and p95 against your budget
median (first number) p95 tail (second) not in your set · click a row to add/remove your budget bars past the line don't reliably arrive in time · chip = % of quotes arriving in time (availability × speed; = availability when budget is off)
Speed × integrity — the same trade-off as one picture
selected — bold, larger unselected — smaller, muted ↑ more honest · → faster · click any dot to add/remove from your set
07

Network coverage.

Quality is half the picture; an aggregator must also support your chains. There is no single registry. Counts come from live provider APIs where available, otherwise official docs, linked per row.

Chains supported for swaps
live registry · refreshed daily by our worker official docs self-reported unverified chains supported for swaps · sources linked per row · docs verified 21 Jul 2026 · live registries re-counted on page load
08

What the API costs.

Quality is one axis; price is the other. Cost stacks in layers: subscription, platform fee in bps, and hidden layers like gas treatment. This compares the published layers at your volume. Undisclosed stays undisclosed, not assumed zero.

Effective monthly cost = subscription + fee × volume
published range (min–max) not publicly disclosed provider docs & pricing pages, Jul 2026
09

Method & source.

All measurements are produced by Enso Shield — an independent benchmark that quotes every aggregator on the identical swap and re-simulates against live chain state (methodology ↗). DFC Research changes none of the numbers; we only re-grade and re-plot them for a given integration setup.

The reliability model. Each source yields a usable quote if it arrives in time and — when simulating — passes simulation. Arrival is estimated from Enso's median and p95 via a log-normal fit. With independent sources, the request fails only if all miss, so reliability = 1 − ∏(1 − uᵢ). The green band for redundancy-covered failures (no-quote; sim-failure when simulating) is 0.001^(1/N): the per-source rate at which N sources still clear 99.9%. Without simulation, sim-failure becomes revert rate directly and redundancy can't mask it, so it hard-pins to 0.1%.

The honest limit. This assumes source failures are independent. Correlated failures — honeypots, transfer-tax tokens, genuinely illiquid routes — fail every source at once and set a floor no amount of redundancy clears. Reaching sub-0.1% in practice is two jobs: enough fast, honest, independent quotes (modelled here) and pre-trade filtering to remove intrinsically unexecutable routes (not in this dataset).

Independence: route99 is built by DFC Research, the research arm of the DeFi Founders Club; some of the measured teams are club members. That is why no number here is ours: all figures come unchanged from Enso Shield, every ranking follows the same published rules for every aggregator, and the source is linked throughout so any figure can be verified directly.