Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
Independent ranking

Best Liquid Restaking Protocols

Liquid restaking protocols, scored on published audits, disclosed methodology and independently tracked size.

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

Kelp

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%10.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%6.0
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 $888m recorded independently
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
9.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
2N

Neemo Finance

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%10.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%6.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
9.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
3B

Bedrock uniETH

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%10.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
8.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
4K

King Protocol

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%10.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
8.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
5M

Mantle Restaking

Best for audited protocol with published methodology
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%8.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Single-chain deployment
8.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
6R

Renzo

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%8.0
Cost transparency · 20%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
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
7.5/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
7E

Eigenpie

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%8.0
Cost transparency · 20%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
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
7.5/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
8P

Puffer Stake

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
6.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
9K

Kyros

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
6.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
10F

Fragmetric

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%6.0
Cost transparency · 20%9.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
6.9/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
11S

Swell Liquid Restaking

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%7.0
Cost transparency · 20%4.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%7.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
6.2/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
12M

Mellow Restaking

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%4.0
Cost transparency · 20%7.0
Market quality · 15%6.0
Transparency & track record · 20%6.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • Tracked and verifiable from public sources at this check
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
5.5/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
13I

InceptionLRT (Isolated Restaking)

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%4.0
Cost transparency · 20%7.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%6.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • Tracked and verifiable from public sources at this check
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
14C

ClayStack ETH

Best for independently tracked protocol
Counterparty & contract risk · 35%4.0
Cost transparency · 20%4.0
Market quality · 15%4.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
5.0/10
Overall
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
Visit Read review
At a glance

Compare the field

ServiceScoreStrongest areaBest for
Kelp9.2Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Neemo Finance9.2Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Bedrock uniETH8.9Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
King Protocol8.9Counterparty & contract risk (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Mantle Restaking8.2Transparency & track record (10.0)audited protocol with published methodology
Renzo7.5Counterparty & contract risk (8.0)independently tracked protocol
Eigenpie7.5Counterparty & contract risk (8.0)independently tracked protocol
Puffer Stake6.9Cost transparency (9.0)independently tracked protocol
Kyros6.9Cost transparency (9.0)independently tracked protocol
Fragmetric6.9Cost transparency (9.0)independently tracked protocol
Swell Liquid Restaking6.2Transparency & track record (8.0)independently tracked protocol
Mellow Restaking5.5Cost transparency (7.0)independently tracked protocol
InceptionLRT (Isolated Restaking)5.2Cost transparency (7.0)independently tracked protocol
ClayStack ETH5.0Transparency & track record (8.0)independently tracked protocol