Yearn Finance on strategy transparency
9.2/ 30% of the score
Every vault publishes its strategies and their current allocations, with the underlying protocols identifiable on-chain.
Journalism for the digital-asset economy
Best Yield Aggregators · Rank 02 of 8
The most transparent vault manager in DeFi
Last verified August 17, 20264 scored axes
Documented, with gaps
Yearn Finance scores 8.8 out of 10 and ranks #2 of 8 in the best yield aggregators table, strongest on strategy transparency (9.2) and weakest on fees (8.2).
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.
4 axes, weighted as published in the table’s methodology. Each score below is read from the fact printed under it.
9.2/ 30% of the score
Every vault publishes its strategies and their current allocations, with the underlying protocols identifiable on-chain.
8.8/ 30% of the score
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.
8.6/ 20% of the score
Vault pages separate the underlying yield from any incentive component.
8.2/ 20% of the score
Management and performance fees published per vault and charged on-chain.
Yearn publishes what each vault is doing and where the money currently sits, with the underlying protocols identifiable on-chain. That is the disclosure standard a fund investor would demand and almost nobody in DeFi meets: most competitors tell you an APY and leave the route to it as an exercise.
Strategies broke in 2020 and 2021. Both times Yearn published a post-mortem and repaid affected depositors from the treasury. Judging a manager by whether anything ever went wrong selects for the young; judging by what happened next selects for the ones worth using.
The current architecture isolates strategies so a failure in one does not propagate across a vault, which is the structural answer to the stacked-dependency problem that defines this category. Your deposit may still touch four protocols; it no longer shares fate with every other strategy in the building.
Management and performance fees are published per vault and charged on-chain, and they sit at the top of the category. Vault selection is genuinely complex for a newcomer. This is a professional product priced like one.
Read what the strategies currently hold rather than the headline yield, and prefer vaults whose underlying protocols you would use directly. The fee is defensible when the strategy does something you could not replicate in two transactions, and expensive when it does not.
It has run since 2020 with an extensive audit history, isolates strategies in its v3 architecture, and repaid depositors from the treasury when strategies failed in 2020 and 2021. The residual risk is the protocols each strategy routes into.
Management and performance fees published per vault and charged on-chain, at the top of the category. The question is whether the strategy does something you could not do yourself in two transactions.
A vault whose strategies are isolated from one another, so a failure in one strategy does not spread to the rest of the vault's positions.
8 services in best yield aggregators