Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
Independent ranking

Best Lending Platforms

Lending markets scored on linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded size.

Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last checked August 10, 2026
1A

Aave V3

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%10.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $14,298m recorded independently
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
2C

Compound V3

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%10.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $1,153m recorded independently
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
3K

Kamino Lend

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $1,044m recorded independently
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
9.6/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
4L

Lista Lending

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $709m recorded independently
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.6/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
5F

Fluid Lending

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $670m recorded independently
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.6/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
6E

Euler V2

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $352m recorded independently
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.6/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
7M

Morpho Blue

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%10.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $7,972m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
8.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
8S

SparkLend

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%10.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $3,751m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
8.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
9c

cap

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%9.0
Cost transparency · 15%6.0
Market quality · 15%5.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%9.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
  • TVL of $292m recorded independently
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
8.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
10M

Maple

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%9.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $2,482m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
8.0/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
11V

Venus Core Pool

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%9.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $1,081m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
8.0/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
12H

HyperLend Pooled

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%6.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $404m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
7.6/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
13J

JustLend V1

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%7.0
Cost transparency · 15%4.0
Market quality · 15%7.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%7.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $3,372m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
6.8/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
14D

Dolomite

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%6.0
Cost transparency · 15%2.0
Market quality · 15%8.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $228m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
6.1/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
15J

Jupiter Lend

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 40%4.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%5.0
Transparency & track record · 20%6.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • TVL of $920m recorded independently
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
5.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
At a glance

Compare the field

ServiceScoreStrongest areaBest for
Aave V39.9Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Compound V39.9Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Kamino Lend9.6Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Lista Lending9.6Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Fluid Lending9.6Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Euler V29.6Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Morpho Blue8.2Market quality (10.0)independently tracked protocol
SparkLend8.2Market quality (10.0)independently tracked protocol
cap8.2Transparency & track record (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Maple8.0Market quality (9.0)independently tracked protocol
Venus Core Pool8.0Market quality (9.0)independently tracked protocol
HyperLend Pooled7.6Counterparty & contract risk (8.0)independently tracked protocol
JustLend V16.8Transparency & track record (8.0)independently tracked protocol
Dolomite6.1Market quality (8.0)independently tracked protocol
Jupiter Lend5.2Cost transparency (7.0)independently tracked protocol