Ranked & Reviewed
Best Liquid Staking Protocols
Liquid staking ranked on commission, validator decentralisation, peg behaviour and the real cost of exiting.
No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.
Stader deducts 10% of ETHx rewards, split evenly between a protocol fee and node operator commission, with a 7 to 10 day unstaking queue. It runs both a permissionless and a permissioned operator pool, releases under GPL-3.0, and names Sigma Prime, Halborn and Code4rena as auditors.
Pros
- Fee published as 10% of rewards: 5% protocol, 5% node operator commission
- ETHx is value-accruing, rising in exchange rate against ETH
- Runs a permissionless pool anyone can operate nodes in, alongside a curated pool
- GPL-3.0 on the ethx repository
- Auditors named: Sigma Prime, Halborn and Code4rena, with reports public
Cons
- Unstaking takes 7-10 days, subject to Ethereum entry and exit queues
- No instant-exit route is described in the documentation
- The permissioned pool is curated rather than open
Origin charges a 20% performance fee on OETH yield, with the token accruing value rather than rebasing. Redemption is 1:1 and asynchronous, usually one to three days with no fee, and validators run on SSV Network across two four-node clusters. The contracts are MIT.
Pros
- Performance fee published as 20% of yield generated
- OETH is value-accruing, redeemable 1:1 with no fee
- Asynchronous redemption typically 1-3 days, with instant liquidity via a Curve pool
- Validators run on SSV Network in two clusters of four nodes, operated by P2P and PierTwo
- MIT licence and audits from OpenZeppelin, Narya, Certora and Nethermind
Cons
- A 20% performance fee is at the higher end of the category
- The operator set is small and named rather than broadly decentralised
- Redemption can stretch to around eight days at high demand
Jito charges a 4% management fee on staking and MEV rewards after validator commissions — roughly 0.3% of deposited SOL per year — with JitoSOL accruing value rather than rebasing. Delayed unstaking takes up to an epoch with a 0.1% fee; instant exit is available by selling.
Pros
- Fee published as 4% of rewards after validator commissions, about 0.3% of deposited SOL a year
- JitoSOL is value-accruing: 1 JitoSOL starts at 1 SOL and appreciates as rewards accrue
- Delayed unstake up to about one epoch (~2 days) with a stated 0.1% fee; instant exit by selling on a DEX
- StakeNet selects the top 400 validators by permissionless binary criteria
- Apache-2.0 on the StakeNet and validator repositories
Cons
- The security page states three firms audited the underlying stake-pool program but does not name them
- Instant exit depends on secondary-market liquidity rather than the protocol
- Delegation is bounded to a top-400 set rather than fully open
Mantle charges 10% of rewards on mETH staking and 20% on cmETH restaking, with mETH accruing value and redemption carrying a minimum 12-hour delay and no fee. Its five operators are named but permissioned, and its contract repository carries no licence file.
Pros
- Fee published: 10% of rewards for mETH, 20% for cmETH restaking
- mETH is a value-accumulating receipt token, not rebasing
- Redemption has a minimum 12-hour delay and, notably, no fee
- Five operators named: A41, P2P, Blockdaemon, stakefish and Kraken
- Audits published in a dedicated repository by Blocksec, Exvul, Hexens, MixBytes and Verilog
Cons
- The mantle-lsp contracts repository has no LICENSE file — published code with no grant of rights
- Only five operators, permissioned rather than open
- Maximum redemption time can reach 40+ days depending on the validator exit queue
Puffer runs a permissionless operator model requiring only a 2 ETH bond, publishes a two-route withdrawal — instant with a 1% fee or standard with none — and licenses pufETH under GPL-3.0. It does not, however, state its commission on staking rewards.
Pros
- Permissionless operators: anyone can run a node with a 2 ETH bond plus validator tickets
- pufETH is value-accruing, starting 1:1 and expected to appreciate
- Two withdrawal routes published: instant to WETH with a 1% fee, or standard with no fee over about 14 days
- GPL-3.0 on the pufETH repository
Cons
- The documentation states the protocol takes a fee but does not publish the percentage
- No dedicated audits page was found and no auditing firm is named for pufETH
- The named audit that exists covers the governance token, not the LST
Ankr takes a 10% technical service fee from staking rewards, with ankrETH accruing value, and offers both a standard unstake and a flash unstake that is instant for a stated 0.5% commission. Its operator model is undescribed and no official contract repository licence could be found.
Pros
- Fee published as a 10% technical service fee from staking rewards
- ankrETH is value-accruing: quantity stays fixed, value rises against ETH
- Two exit routes: standard unstake, or flash unstake that is instant for a stated 0.5% commission
- Audits named: Beosin, dated 2020 and 2022, and Salus, 2023
- Minimum unstake stated at 0.5 ETH
Cons
- The operator set is described only as trusted and reputable, with no count or permission model
- No official ankrETH contract repository with a licence file could be identified
- Flash unstake is limited by the flash pool's capacity
Bedrock charges a 10% commission on block, transaction and MEV rewards for uniETH, with a 2 to 10 day unstaking queue for 32 ETH multiples. It names PeckShield as auditor, but the operator model and a contract repository licence could not be verified.
Pros
- Fee published as 10% commission on block rewards, transaction fees and MEV
- uniETH is value-accruing: quantity fixed, worth increasingly more than 1 ETH
- EigenLayer points carried at 0% commission
- PeckShield audit named and dated 15 February 2024
Cons
- Unstaking is in multiples of 32 ETH, with sub-32 amounts routed through an aggregator
- The operator model is described only as Bedrock handling all interactions
- No contract repository with a licence file could be confirmed
- Restaking fee commission is to be decided by the community, so it is undocumented
Liquid Collective charges a 10% service fee shared among operators, providers, a slashing-coverage treasury and its DAO, with LsETH a non-rebasing value-accruing token. Redemption is a three-stage process with no instant exit, operators are permissioned, and the protocol is BUSL-1.1.
Pros
- Fee published at 10% of network rewards
- Part of the fee funds a slashing-coverage treasury, a documented loss backstop
- LsETH is non-rebasing, value-accruing on a cToken model
- Redemption process documented in three clear stages
Cons
- The per-party split of the 10% fee is not broken out
- Business Source License 1.1 — not an open-source licence
- Operators are permissioned, meeting performance and compliance requirements, with no count stated
- Contracts said to be audited by top-tier firms, but no firm is named
Frax retains 10% of income — 8% protocol fee and 2% to an insurance fund, with sfrxETH holders keeping 90%. It states withdrawals are available at any time and size, but the sfrxETH vault is AGPL-3.0 while the frxETH repository carries no licence, and operator and audit detail are not published.
Pros
- Fee published with its split: 10% retained, 8% protocol and 2% insurance fund, 90% to holders
- A dedicated 2% insurance-fund carve-out, which few peers document
- The sfrxETH ERC-4626 vault is AGPL-3.0, a strong copyleft licence
- States withdrawals are available at any time and of any size
Cons
- The frxETH-public repository has no LICENSE file
- Unbonding period, instant-exit route and any exit fee are not stated
- The operator set is not described
- No audits are named on the overview page
Swell publishes a named, permissioned operator set through an official post, but its documentation site is behind a Cloudflare challenge, so its commission, receipt-token mechanics, withdrawal terms and audits could not be read, and its core repository carries no licence file.
Pros
- Operator set named in an official Swell post: Blockscape, Hashkey, RockX, Infstones, SNC, DSRV, Stakely and Kiln
- The named set is broad relative to the five-operator models elsewhere here
Cons
- The documentation site returned a Cloudflare challenge, so commission, token mechanics, withdrawals and audits could not be read from primary sources
- The v3-core-public repository has no LICENSE file
- We declined to use blog or third-party figures for the unverifiable facts
At a glance
| Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| Stader (ETHx) | 8.8 | GPL-3.0, permissionless pool, named auditors |
| Origin Ether (OETH) | 8.4 | MIT-licensed with four named auditors |
| Jito (JitoSOL) | 7.8 | Value-accruing SOL staking with published exit fee |
| Mantle (mETH) | 6.6 | No-fee redemption and named operators |
| Puffer (pufETH) | 6.6 | Permissionless operators at a 2 ETH bond |
| Ankr (ankrETH) | 5.8 | Instant exit at a stated 0.5% |
| Bedrock (uniETH) | 5.0 | Fee split published, licence unverified |
| Liquid Collective (LsETH) | 4.8 | Institutional model with a slashing-coverage treasury |
| Frax Ether (sfrxETH) | 4.4 | Insurance-fund carve-out, one repo unlicensed |
| Swell (swETH) | 2.8 | Named operators, docs behind a challenge |
Liquid staking stakes your assets and gives you a receipt token you can keep using elsewhere. The appeal is not giving up liquidity to earn a staking yield; the catch is that the receipt is only worth the underlying if the market agrees it is.
So the score follows two things: the yield that survives the operator's commission, and how the receipt token has actually tracked its peg during stress, alongside the time and cost of native redemption when secondary liquidity dries up.
How we score this category
Liquid staking is scored on the yield that reaches you after commission and on whether you can actually get your capital back out. This rubric follows the published commission, the exit terms, the operator set and the code licence — the facts a holder needs before minting a receipt token, and the ones a protocol either documents or leaves vague.
Every service in this ranking is scored 0–10 against the same 5 criteria, each carrying equal weight (20% apiece). The overall score is their plain average, rounded to one decimal place, and each review prints the individual numbers and the arithmetic so you can reproduce the result yourself.
What each criterion covers
- Commission clarity20% of the score
- Whether the fee taken from staking rewards is published as a figure, and whether the split between protocol, operators and any insurance fund is broken out. A stated percentage beats an APY quoted with no mention of the cut behind it.
- Exit & redemption20% of the score
- The unbonding period, whether an instant-exit route exists and what it costs, and whether native redemption is available. Vague withdrawal language scores below a stated queue and a stated fee.
- Operator decentralisation20% of the score
- How many node operators there are and whether entry is permissionless or a curated set. A named permissioned set is scored honestly as such — not disqualified, but distinguished from open participation.
- Licence & code openness20% of the score
- The licence on the protocol's own contract repository, read from the file. A recognised open-source licence scores highest; a missing licence file scores lowest, since published code with no grant reserves every right.
- Audit disclosure20% of the score
- Whether audit reports are published with the firms named. A statement that the contracts were audited by top firms, without naming them, is not disclosure.
What does not affect a score
Nothing commercial, because there is nothing commercial to affect it. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links anywhere on the site. Links to the services above earn us nothing, so no provider can buy a score, a rank, or an entry in this list. Where two services finish level, they are listed alphabetically rather than ordered silently.
The process across all categories, including how often we re-check, is set out in our ratings methodology.
Rankings are editorial. Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.