Ranked & Reviewed
Best Yield Aggregators
Vaults and aggregators ranked on net-of-fee returns, strategy transparency and the risk inherited from underlying protocols.
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.
Origin charges a 20% performance fee on OUSD yield, states that displayed APYs are already net of that fee, licenses under MIT and names four auditors. OUSD is a rebasing yield-bearing stablecoin that holders can redeem at any time.
Pros
- Performance fee published at 20% of yield, with no management or withdrawal fee mentioned
- Displayed APYs already reflect net returns after the fee — stated plainly
- MIT licence, with auditors named: OpenZeppelin, Solidified, Trail of Bits and Sigma Prime
- Holders can spend, transfer or redeem at any time through the Origin dapp
Cons
- A 20% performance fee is at the higher end of the category
- Explicit non-custodial wording is implied by redemption rights rather than stated
- Historical, non-projected performance is not published on the page read
Yearn releases its vaults under AGPL-3.0 and names its auditors across v2 and v3, with factory-deployed vaults charging a 10% performance fee and single-asset vaults generally none. Users are stated to be in control of their assets at all times.
Pros
- AGPL-3.0, a strong copyleft open-source licence over the vaults
- Auditors named across versions: StateMind, ChainSecurity, yAudit on v3; MixBytes, ChainSecurity, Trail of Bits on v2
- Factory vaults charge a 10% performance fee; single-asset vaults generally have no management fee
- States users are in control of their assets and can see where they are at all times
Cons
- The fee structure is now dynamic by vault, so no single figure applies across the protocol
- Withdrawal fee is not stated on the overview page
- Historical, non-projected performance is not published on the overview page
Convex publishes its fee split to the last component — a 17% total fee on CRV revenue itemised across cvxCRV stakers, CVX stakers, treasury and the harvest caller — charges no deposit or withdrawal fees for LPs, and licenses its platform under MIT.
Pros
- 17% total fee on CRV revenue itemised: 10% cvxCRV stakers, 4.5% CVX stakers, 2% treasury, 0.5% harvest caller
- 20% total fee on FXS revenue and 17% on FXN, each published
- Zero deposit and withdrawal fees for liquidity providers
- MIT licence, and auditors named: MixBytes, PeckShield, ChainSecurity and Nomoi
Cons
- Explicit non-custodial wording was not found on the pages read
- Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented on the pages read
- The model is tied to the Curve and Frax ecosystems rather than general-purpose
Idle publishes a 10% performance fee on its Best Yield product and 10 to 15% on Yield Tranches, with no management or withdrawal fees, states that displayed APY is net of fees, and licenses under Apache 2.0 with five named auditors.
Pros
- Performance fee published: 10% on Best Yield, 10-15% on Yield Tranches
- No management or withdrawal fees stated
- Displayed APY stated to be net of fees
- Apache 2.0 licence; five auditors named: Quantstamp, Consensys Diligence, Certik, Hats Finance and Hans Friese
Cons
- Apache 2.0 file carries an added notice, which GitHub classifies as NOASSERTION
- Custody is not explicitly addressed on the pages read
- Historical, non-projected performance is not published
Aura publishes a 25% total fee on all BAL revenue from Balancer LPs, itemised and capped by an absolute 25% ceiling, under an MIT licence with four named auditors. Custody and strategy detail are not addressed on the pages read.
Pros
- 25% total fee on BAL revenue itemised: 18% auraBAL stakers, 4% AURA/ETH LPs, 0.5% harvest caller
- An absolute fee ceiling of 25% stated
- MIT licence on the contracts
- Four auditors named: PeckShield, Code4rena, Halborn and Zellic
Cons
- Custody is not addressed on the security page
- The docs landing page rendered empty, so the plain-language description came only from the fees page
- Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented
- Tied to the Balancer ecosystem rather than general-purpose
Beefy states plainly that it never locks or owns user funds and names eight audit firms, but publishes no specific fee percentages and ships its official contracts repository with no licence file at all.
Pros
- States user funds are never locked and that Beefy does not own funds staked in vaults
- Eight auditors named: DeFiYield, CertiK, Zellic, OpenZeppelin, Cyfrin, Certora, Sherlock and Electisec
- A 0.05% zap fee is published for the Zap V2 feature
- Vaults described as auto-compounding yield-farming strategies
Cons
- The core beefy-contracts repository has no LICENSE file and no licence field in package.json
- No specific performance or withdrawal fee percentage is published on the vaults page
- Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented
Pendle tokenises future yield into tradable principal and yield tokens, collecting a flat 5% fee on all yield accrued by yield tokens plus a maturity-scaled swap fee. Its core is BUSL-1.1 and four audit sources are named.
Pros
- Flat 5% fee on all yield accrued by yield tokens, published clearly
- Swap fee formula published: scales with time to maturity, set by the pool deployer
- Auditors named: Ackee, Dedaub, Dingbats and top Code4rena wardens
- A genuinely distinct model — separating principal from yield into tradable tokens
Cons
- Business Source License 1.1, not an open-source licence today
- No custody statement was found on the pages read
- The swap fee is variable per pool rather than a single figure
- The overview page returned 404, so the description came from the mechanics pages
Yield Yak enforces no deposit or withdraw fees, taking a variable 5 to 10% reinvest fee from reward tokens, and licenses its contracts under MIT. It candidly warns that not all underlying farms are audited, but no audit of its own could be verified.
Pros
- No deposit or withdraw fees enforced by Yield Yak itself
- Reinvest fee stated as usually 5 to 10% of reward tokens, with a worked example
- MIT licence on the smart contracts
- Candidly warns that not all farms are audited, especially new ones, and that it relies on other platforms' contracts
Cons
- No named audit of Yield Yak's own contracts could be verified; the docs audit pages 404 or name no firms
- Underlying farms may charge their own fees, outside Yield Yak's control
- Custody is not explicitly stated
- The reinvest fee is variable rather than a single figure
Harvest publishes a performance fee of 8 to 15% used to buy FARM, states that the displayed APY already reflects it, and documents a 12-hour timelock on its strategies. But its repository has no LICENSE file, declaring only ISC in package.json, and custody is not stated.
Pros
- Performance fee published as a range, 8-15%, used to buy FARM
- Displayed APY stated to already reflect the performance-fee reduction
- Strategies operate via a 12-hour timelock before reinvesting, documented
- Five auditors named: PeckShield, Haechi Labs, Certik, Least Authority and Halborn
Cons
- The harvest repository has no LICENSE file; package.json declares only ISC
- The fee is a range rather than a single figure
- No management or withdrawal fee is stated either way
- Custody is not addressed on the pages read
Sommelier's cellars can charge annualised management fees and high-watermark performance fees, both in basis points, with the platform fee deprecated. The contracts are Apache 2.0, but no official audit page could be reached and custody is not addressed.
Pros
- Management fees documented as flat annualised fees on cellar TVL, in basis points
- Performance fees charged only above a high-watermark, in basis points
- The platform fee is stated to be deprecated
- Apache 2.0 licence on the cellar contracts
Cons
- No official audit page could be reached; only third-party audit references exist
- Custody is not addressed on the fetched page
- Fees are described as configurable per cellar rather than as fixed figures
- Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented on the page read
At a glance
| Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|
| Origin (OUSD) | 8.8 | Rebasing yield stablecoin, MIT and net APY |
| Yearn Finance | 8.2 | AGPL-licensed with a named audit record |
| Convex Finance | 7.6 | MIT-licensed with fees published to the basis point |
| Idle Finance | 7.4 | Apache-licensed with net APY and named audits |
| Aura Finance | 6.6 | MIT-licensed with a published fee ceiling |
| Beefy | 6.2 | Eight named auditors, no licence file |
| Pendle | 6.0 | Yield tokenisation with a flat 5% fee |
| Yield Yak | 5.6 | MIT-licensed, no deposit or withdraw fees |
| Harvest Finance | 5.2 | Named audits, ISC only in package.json |
| Sommelier | 4.6 | Apache-licensed cellars, audits unverified |
An aggregator automates moving capital between yield sources and compounding the proceeds. Convenience is the product, and the price is a management or performance fee plus exposure to every protocol the strategy touches.
A vault is only as safe as its weakest deployment, so we score the audits and admin keys of the vault itself alongside the risk of what it routes into, and we check whether the displayed APY is net of fees or a gross figure that nobody receives.
How we score this category
An aggregator inherits the risk of everything it deploys into, so this rubric scores what it charges, how openly it licenses its code, whether it names its auditors and whether it says plainly that your funds stay yours. Advertised APY is not scored — it moves daily and is set by the strategies underneath — but the fee taken off the top, and who checked the vault holding your deposit, are matters of record.
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
- Fee disclosure20% of the score
- Whether performance, management and withdrawal fees are published as figures rather than described as a structure. Stating there is no withdrawal fee counts as disclosure; leaving the number to the interface does not.
- Licence & code openness20% of the score
- The licence on the protocol's own contracts repository, read from the file. A recognised open-source licence scores highest; a delayed-open licence mid-table; a missing licence file lowest, since a vault holding your deposit under unlicensed code reserves every right by default.
- Audit disclosure20% of the score
- Whether audit reports are published with the firms named. A vault that routes into other protocols carries stacked risk, so a long list of named auditors matters more here than almost anywhere.
- Custody & control20% of the score
- Whether the protocol states plainly that funds are never locked and that it does not own or control user deposits. A vault is only non-custodial if it says so and the code bears it out.
- Strategy transparency20% of the score
- Whether the displayed return is stated to be net of fees, and whether what the vault actually does with deposited funds is documented rather than left as a black box.
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.