Skip to content

October 3, 2026

SearchAbout
CRYPTO·COINBEAT

Journalism for the digital-asset economy

Ratings / Yield & Lending

Best Yield Aggregators

Vaults ranked on whether you can see the strategy, whether it has ever broken, and where the yield comes from.

8 services ratedLast verified August 17, 2026Methodology

What the score is made of

Weights total 100% · how each axis is recorded ↓
Strategy transparency
30%
Whether the vault publishes exactly what it does with your deposit, and where.
Security record
30%
Audit depth, time in production, and how past incidents were handled.
Yield durability
20%
Whether returns come from fees and interest or from token emissions.
Fees
20%
Management and performance fees relative to the value actually added.

The table at a glance

8 rated · top score 8.8 · tap a row for the full entry

  1. 01Convex FinanceAnyone providing liquidity on Curve8.8
  2. 02Yearn FinanceThe most transparent vault manager in DeFi8.8
  3. 03Aura FinanceBalancer liquidity providers8.5
  4. 04Beefy FinanceMulti-chain auto-compounding across many small ecosystems8.4
  5. 05Origin ProtocolSet-and-forget yield-bearing stablecoin exposure8.3
  6. 06Idle FinanceTranched exposure where risk is explicitly split7.8
  7. 07SommelierActively managed strategies with off-chain computation7.7
  8. 08Harvest FinanceLong-tail farm auto-compounding7.5
Editor’s pickRank 01

Convex Finance

Anyone providing liquidity on Curve

Not really an aggregator so much as the boosting layer the Curve economy runs on, and it has held enormous value for years without a security incident. Its usefulness is entirely a function of Curve's, which is the concentration risk.

In its favour

  • Clean multi-year security record holding very large TVL
  • Materially improves returns for Curve liquidity providers
  • Simple, legible mechanism with no hidden strategy layer

Against it

  • Entirely dependent on Curve's continued relevance
  • Governance dynamics around vote markets are opaque to outsiders
  • Launched2021
  • ModelVote-escrow boosting layer
  • EcosystemCurve
Score8.8

The weighted mean of the 4 axes below — each read from the fact printed beside it.

Strongest
Security record9.0
Weakest
Strategy transparency8.6

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.6
The mechanism is a single boosting layer with no hidden strategy: deposits are staked into Curve gauges and the routing is verifiable on-chain.
Security record
9.0
In production since 2021 holding very large balances, with published audits and no exploit on record.
Yield durability
8.8
Returns are Curve trading fees plus CRV emissions, both visible on-chain and reported separately.
Fees
8.8
Fee split published as a fixed percentage of harvested rewards.

Read the full Convex Finance review →

The rest of the table

02

Yearn Finance

The most transparent vault manager in DeFi

The original yield aggregator, with per-strategy disclosures, a v3 architecture that isolates risk properly and a history of covering losses when strategies failed. Fees are above the category average and it makes no apology for that.

In its favour

  • Publishes strategy composition and allocations in detail
  • Isolated v3 vault architecture limits contagion between strategies
  • Reimbursed depositors after past strategy failures

Against it

  • Fee structure is among the highest in the category
  • Vault selection is complex for newcomers
  • Launched2020
  • ModelMulti-strategy vaults
  • ChainsEthereum and major L2s

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
9.2
Every vault publishes its strategies and their current allocations, with the underlying protocols identifiable on-chain.
Security record
8.8
In production since 2020 with an extensive published audit history; strategy failures in 2020 and 2021 were followed by public post-mortems and depositor repayment from the treasury.
Yield durability
8.6
Vault pages separate the underlying yield from any incentive component.
Fees
8.2
Management and performance fees published per vault and charged on-chain.

Full Yearn Finance review →

Score8.8
03

Aura Finance

Balancer liquidity providers

Does for Balancer what Convex did for Curve, with a comparable design and a clean record since launch. The dependency chain runs one protocol deeper than Convex's, which is worth a point.

In its favour

  • Meaningfully improves Balancer LP returns
  • Clean security record with substantial value at stake
  • Transparent, mechanical boosting model

Against it

  • Depends on Balancer, which has its own incident history
  • Narrow use case outside that ecosystem
  • Launched2022
  • ModelVote-escrow boosting layer
  • EcosystemBalancer

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.4
Boosting layer for Balancer with routing verifiable on-chain.
Security record
8.4
In production since 2022 with published audits and no exploit of its own contracts on record.
Yield durability
8.6
Returns are Balancer trading fees plus BAL and AURA emissions, reported separately.
Fees
8.6
Fee split published as a fixed percentage of harvested rewards.

Full Aura Finance review →

Score8.5
04

Beefy Finance

Multi-chain auto-compounding across many small ecosystems

The widest chain coverage in the category by a distance, with an auto-compounding model that is simple enough to reason about and a long record without a core exploit. Strategy quality varies with the chain you are on.

In its favour

  • Broadest multi-chain coverage of any aggregator
  • Simple auto-compounding model, easy to verify
  • Long production history with no core-contract failure

Against it

  • Vault quality varies significantly across smaller chains
  • Many vaults depend on emission-funded yield
  • Launched2020
  • ModelAuto-compounding vaults
  • Chains20+

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.4
Each vault names the underlying farm and its strategy contract, verifiable on-chain.
Security record
8.4
In production since 2020 across more than twenty chains with published audits and no core-contract exploit on record.
Yield durability
8.0
Much of the quoted APY on smaller chains is emission-funded, and the interface separates the components.
Fees
8.6
Performance fee published per vault and taken from harvested rewards.

Full Beefy Finance review →

Score8.4
05

Origin Protocol

Set-and-forget yield-bearing stablecoin exposure

OUSD and its ETH sibling are rebasing tokens that accrue yield in the wallet with no vault interaction at all, which is the simplest user experience in the category. A 2020 exploit is old but remains part of the record.

In its favour

  • Yield accrues automatically with no vault management
  • Clear, published strategy allocations
  • Well-audited since rebuilding after its early exploit

Against it

  • Suffered a significant exploit in 2020
  • Rebasing tokens integrate awkwardly with some protocols
  • Launched2020
  • ModelRebasing yield tokens
  • ChainsEthereum and L2s

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.6
Publishes the strategy allocations behind its rebasing tokens, updated on-chain.
Security record
7.8
In production since 2020; a November 2020 flash-loan exploit took roughly $7m, after which the protocol repaid affected users and rebuilt with additional audits.
Yield durability
8.4
Yield is sourced from named lending and AMM strategies rather than from its own token emissions.
Fees
8.4
Performance fee published and applied at the rebase level.

Full Origin Protocol review →

Score8.3
06

Idle Finance

Tranched exposure where risk is explicitly split

Splits vault yield into senior and junior tranches, so one set of depositors takes first losses in exchange for higher returns. It is the most financially literate structure in the category and has never found much of an audience.

In its favour

  • Explicit senior / junior risk tranching
  • Long-running deployment with a clean record
  • Clear documentation of loss waterfalls

Against it

  • Small TVL means thin liquidity in both tranches
  • Tranching is unfamiliar to most DeFi users
  • Launched2019
  • ModelTranched yield vaults
  • ChainEthereum and L2s

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.2
Tranche composition and the underlying strategies are published and verifiable on-chain.
Security record
7.8
In production since 2019 with published audits; the loss waterfall between senior and junior tranches is documented.
Yield durability
7.4
Yield derives from the underlying lending markets, with incentives shown separately.
Fees
7.6
Fees published per tranche and charged on-chain.

Full Idle Finance review →

Score7.8
07

Sommelier

Actively managed strategies with off-chain computation

Uses an off-chain validator network to compute strategy rebalances that would be too expensive on-chain, which enables genuinely active management. It also means trusting a separate chain's validator set with your rebalancing.

In its favour

  • Enables active strategies impossible to run purely on-chain
  • Published strategy mandates per vault
  • Professional strategy providers rather than anonymous developers

Against it

  • Rebalancing depends on an external validator network
  • Fee load is high relative to realised returns
  • Launched2022
  • ModelOff-chain computed strategies
  • ChainEthereum

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
8.0
Vault mandates are published, but rebalancing decisions are computed off-chain by a separate validator network rather than by an on-chain strategy contract.
Security record
7.6
In production since 2022 with published audits and no exploit on record.
Yield durability
7.6
Quoted yields have included incentive components, disclosed per vault.
Fees
7.4
Management and performance fees published per vault.

Full Sommelier review →

Score7.7
08

Harvest Finance

Long-tail farm auto-compounding

Still running and still covering pools nobody else bothers with, at low fees. The 2020 flash-loan exploit was substantial, and while the protocol repaid users, it belongs in any honest assessment.

In its favour

  • Covers long-tail pools other aggregators skip
  • Low fee structure
  • Repaid affected users after its 2020 exploit

Against it

  • Major flash-loan exploit in its history
  • Development pace has slowed considerably
  • Launched2020
  • ModelAuto-compounding vaults
  • ChainsEthereum and several EVM chains

Scorecard — and what it was read from

Strategy transparency
7.6
Vault strategies name the underlying farms and are verifiable on-chain.
Security record
7.0
In production since 2020; an October 2020 flash-loan exploit took roughly $24m, of which the attacker returned $2.5m, followed by a published post-mortem and a compensation programme.
Yield durability
7.4
A large share of quoted yield on long-tail pools is emission-funded.
Fees
8.0
Performance fee published and taken from harvested rewards.

Full Harvest Finance review →

Score7.5

↑ Back to the table at a glance

What the record supports

Yearn remains the most credible manager in the category on the strength of its disclosure practices and its record of handling incidents openly. Beefy is the better multi-chain workhorse, and Convex and Aura exist for a narrower reason — they are infrastructure for the Curve and Balancer economies rather than general-purpose vaults.

A conclusion drawn from the facts above, and the only part of this page that is.

How a score is read

Each axis is read off the same five bands. They describe what is on the record, not how impressed we are.

9.0–10
Documented and independently verifiable
The claim is evidenced by a published record a third party can check — an attestation, an on-chain contract, a regulator's register — and nothing adverse is on file.
8.0–8.9
Documented, with gaps
Evidence exists but is partial, dated, or covers only part of what the axis measures.
7.0–7.9
Self-reported only
The operator publishes the information and no independent party has verified it.
6.0–6.9
Adverse event on record
A recorded incident, enforcement action or failure that has since been resolved, remediated or repaid.
Below 6
Undocumented or unresolved
No published evidence, or an incident with no resolution on the record. An absence of evidence is scored as an absence.

How we scored this table

A yield aggregator is an asset manager written in Solidity, so this table records what a fund investor would ask for: the current strategy and its allocations, the incident record with repayment outcomes, the source of the yield, and the fee actually charged.

Yield durability is recorded as a split. Interest and trading fees are income; token emissions are dilution, and the two are separated wherever the protocol or the chain data allows. A vault whose quoted APY is mostly emissions is recorded as such.

Incidents are recorded with amount and outcome, because repayment is a fact about the operator that a raw incident count hides. Every audit is recorded as scope reviewed at a date, not as a safety guarantee — several protocols in this table were audited before they were exploited.

  • Every score on this page carries the fact it was read from, printed beside the bar.
  • Emission-funded APY is recorded separately from fee-funded APY.
  • Repayment after an incident is recorded, and it counts.

What each axis records, and where the facts come from

Strategy transparency30%
Whether each vault publishes its current strategy and allocations, and whether the protocols it routes into can be identified on-chain.
Source: Vault dashboards, on-chain strategy contracts and their allocations.
Security record30%
Audits published, time in production, value held, and every recorded incident with the amount lost and whether depositors were repaid.
Source: Published audits, incident post-mortems, on-chain repayment records.
Yield durability20%
The split between fee or interest income and token emissions inside the quoted APY.
Source: Protocol fee data, published emission schedules, vault reward breakdowns.
Fees20%
Published management and performance fees and how they are charged.
Source: On-chain vault fee parameters and published documentation.

Frequently asked questions

Where does DeFi yield actually come from?+

Three places: trading fees paid by swappers, interest paid by borrowers, and token emissions paid by dilution. The first two are income; the third is a transfer from future holders, and a vault that blurs the distinction is telling you something.

What is the main risk in a yield vault?+

Stacked dependencies. Your deposit may touch four protocols, and any one of them failing hits your principal even if the vault's own code is flawless. That is why published strategies matter more than headline APY.

Are performance fees justified?+

Sometimes. A performance fee on genuine excess return is defensible; a management fee on a passive position that simply holds a token is not. Compare the fee against what the vault does that you could not do in two transactions.

Do audits mean a vault is safe?+

They mean a defined scope was reviewed at a point in time. Nearly every exploited protocol had been audited. Audits reduce risk; time in production with real value at stake reduces it more.

More in Yield & Lending