PancakeSwap: decentralised exchanges rating breakdown
BNB Chain and 11 others
The second-largest venue by volume anywhere, at $25bn over thirty days, and it costs a third of what Uniswap costs: 0.0651% realised. If the trade is on BNB Chain, this is both the deepest book and one of the cheapest, which is a combination almost nothing else here manages.
The second-largest venue by volume anywhere, at $25bn over thirty days, and it costs a third of what Uniswap costs: 0.0651% realised. If the trade is on BNB Chain, this is both the deepest book and one of the cheapest, which is a combination almost nothing else here manages.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back? | — | 30% | 7 | 5 | 2 of 9 | +0.60 |
| What traders actually paid | 0.0651 what traders actually paid · computed · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 8 | 7 | 2 of 9 | +0.25 |
| Depth and volume | $25.00bn 30-day volume · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$2.30bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 9 | 7 | 2 of 9 | +0.50 |
| Chains and assets | 12 chains deployed · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 12% | 6 | 6 | 5 of 9 | 0.00 |
| How hard the capital works | 10.9× per 30 days capital turnover · computed · 2026-08-27 | 8% | 7 | 7 | 4 of 9 | 0.00 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back?, worth +0.60 points against the median
Has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back?: 7/10
Contract exploits with dates, amounts and — the question every other comparison skips — whether users were actually made whole. A DEX is a set of contracts holding pooled money, so this is the first question, not the fifth. Audit count is recorded but never scored on its own: Balancer V2 was among the most audited contract systems in DeFi and lost $128m to a rounding error in November 2025.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 2nd of 9 among decentralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is 0.60 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 1.
What traders actually paid: 8/10
Computed by us, not read off a fee-tier page: thirty days of protocol fees divided by thirty days of volume, per venue, from public data. That single division exposes what routing, tier mix and pool design really cost, and it disagrees with the advertised tiers everywhere. It is not the whole cost of a trade — slippage and gas sit on top — but it is the part every comparison misstates.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 2nd of 9 among decentralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.25 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Depth and volume: 9/10
Total value locked and thirty-day volume, both from public data at a stated timestamp. Depth is what decides slippage on a real trade, and volume is what proves the depth is usable rather than parked.
Scored 9 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 2nd of 9 among decentralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.50 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Chains and assets: 6/10
The number of chains where the venue is actually deployed, weighted by whether volume genuinely flows there. A deployment on forty chains that trades on two is coverage on paper.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 5th of 9 among decentralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 12% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
How hard the capital works: 7/10
Thirty-day volume divided by total value locked — how many times each dollar of liquidity turned over. Nobody publishes this, and it separates a venue whose pools are genuinely used from one sitting on idle incentive-farmed capital. It also predicts fee income per dollar of risk taken by liquidity providers.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 9 among decentralised exchanges on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 3.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back? | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uniswap | 9 | Ahead by 2 on has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back?. |
| 3 | Aerodrome | 6 | Behind by 1 on has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back?. |
| 4 | Orca | 7 | Level on has it been drained, and did anyone get paid back?; the gap is elsewhere. |
Questions about this score
How much does PancakeSwap charge?
+
0.0651% of volume, measured as thirty days of protocol fees over thirty days of volume — about a third of what Uniswap's users paid over the same period. Published tier sheets show a range; the realised rate is what the mix of pools actually produced, and it is the number that describes what traders were charged.
Why does PancakeSwap have lotteries and prediction markets?
+
Because they generate fees and attention, and the interface promotes them heavily alongside the exchange. That is worth naming rather than ignoring: the trading engine underneath is genuinely competitive on price and depth, and it is wrapped in a product designed to keep a certain kind of user engaged. Use one part without the other if that is what you came for.