Balancer Review
GPL-3.0 licensed and immutable by design
of 10
Balancer is released under GPL-3.0 — a recognised open-source licence, unlike most of this category — and states that its core contracts are immutable by design, with pool updates requiring users to migrate voluntarily.
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.
Licence
GPL-3.0 (v2 and v3 monorepos)
Fee range
0.001%-10% weighted; 0.0001%-10% stable
Immutability
Core contracts immutable by design
Upgrades
New factories and pools deployed; users migrate electively
Chains
13 named networks
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 10.0 + 10.0 + 8.0 + 6.0) ÷ 5 = 8.4.
Pros
- GPL-3.0 in both v2 and v3 monorepos, a recognised open-source licence
- Core contracts described as immutable by design; updates require voluntary user migration
- Fee bounds published: 0.001%-10% for weighted pools, 0.0001%-10% for stable pools
- Deployed across 13 named networks
Cons
- Publishes bounds rather than discrete fee tiers, so the actual rate is per-pool
- Only one audit firm, Certora, is named on the security page
- v3 imposes no swap fee limit at the vault level
Actually open source
Both the v2 and v3 monorepos carry GNU General Public License v3.0. In a category where the leading protocols ship delayed-open or rights-reserving licences, a plain recognised open-source licence is the exception rather than the rule, and it earns full marks here.
Immutable, with migration rather than upgrades
Balancer states that the Vault and Pools are immutable by design, and that any pool updates are made by deploying new factories and pools which users must electively migrate to. That is a stronger guarantee than an upgradeable contract behind a timelock, because there is no path to change what you are already using.
Where disclosure thins out
Fees are published as bounds rather than tiers, so a trader must check each pool. And only Certora is named on the security page — several competitors name five or more firms.
How it compares
Jupiter
Zero protocol fees, unpublished core code
1inch
MIT-licensed aggregator with unpublished fees
Orca
Detailed fee tiers under a revocable licence
Curve
Four named auditors, but the code grants no rights
Aerodrome
Honest about which parts stay upgradeable
Raydium
Exact fee tiers under a clean Apache licence
SushiSwap
Widest chain deployment, thinnest current disclosure
PancakeSwap
Ten named auditors and a GPL licence
Uniswap
Published tiers and genuinely immutable core
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Balancer — swap fee documentation — checked
- 2.Balancer v3 monorepo — LICENSE — checked
- 3.Balancer — contract security and immutability — checked
Frequently asked questions
Is Balancer open source?
Yes. Both the v2 and v3 monorepos carry the GNU General Public License v3.0.
Can Balancer contracts be upgraded?
No. Balancer states core contracts are immutable by design; updates are made by deploying new pools which users migrate to voluntarily.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.