Stake DAO: yield aggregators rating breakdown
10 chains
A competent, long-running aggregator across ten chains with $141m locked, built around the same vote-boosting mechanics as Convex but spread across more ecosystems. Audited, with a public strategy list.
A competent, long-running aggregator across ten chains with $141m locked, built around the same vote-boosting mechanics as Convex but spread across more ecosystems. Audited, with a public strategy list.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who moves your money, and what happened last time | — | 30% | 7 | 7 | 2 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Can you see what you actually own? | — | 22% | 7 | 7 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Size and survival | — | 20% | 6 | 6.5 | 5 of 8 | -0.10 |
| What they take | — | 18% | 6 | 6.5 | 5 of 8 | -0.09 |
| Chains and assets | 10 chains · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 10% | 8 | 7 | 3 of 8 | +0.10 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by size and survival, worth -0.10 points against the median
Who moves your money, and what happened last time: 7/10
Who can change a strategy, how fast, and whether a timelock or a multisig stands between a compromised key and your deposit. Then every incident on record with what happened to depositors: Yearn’s DAI vault lost about $11m to a price-manipulated Curve strategy in February 2021 and repaid users from the treasury; a misconfigured legacy contract cost roughly $10m more in April 2023, with no comparable make-whole. Same protocol, opposite outcomes.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 2nd of 8 among yield aggregators on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 5.
Can you see what you actually own?: 7/10
Whether the current strategy and its underlying positions are published in a form a depositor can read, whether the advertised APY is net of fees, and whether historical performance is available rather than a trailing best number. A vault that shows a yield and not its composition is asking for trust it has not evidenced.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 8 among yield aggregators on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Size and survival: 6/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and how long the protocol has operated through full market cycles. In a category where the product is discretion, a long record is itself evidence.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 5th of 8 among yield aggregators on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is 0.10 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What they take: 6/10
Published performance and management fees, quoted from the protocol’s own documentation, and whether the displayed APY already has them deducted. Where a protocol’s fee schedule is not stated plainly in its own docs, that is recorded as a finding rather than estimated.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 5th of 8 among yield aggregators on this criterion. At a 18% weight that is 0.09 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Chains and assets: 8/10
Chains with real deposits and the range of assets supported, from public data at a stated timestamp.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 3rd of 8 among yield aggregators on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.10 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Other measurements
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Size and survival | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Yearn Finance | 6 | Level on size and survival; the gap is elsewhere. |
| 5 | Beefy | 5 | Behind by 1 on size and survival. |
| 7 | CIAN Yield Layer | 7 | Ahead by 1 on size and survival. |
| 8 | Vesper | 4 | Behind by 2 on size and survival. |
Questions about this score
Stake DAO or Convex?
+
Convex, unless you specifically want Stake DAO's multi-chain coverage. They do the same thing — pool voting power to pass boosted rewards to depositors — and Convex is roughly four times larger, which in a mechanism that depends on aggregated voting power translates directly into more boost. Stake DAO covers ten chains against Convex's four, which is the case for using it.