Ranked & Reviewed · 9 services
Best Liquid Restaking Protocols
Nine liquid restaking tokens and restaking layers, ranked on fee disclosure, slashing disclosure, exit terms, code licence and audits. Marks checked against primary sources on 1 November 2026.
At a glance
| # | Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Renzo (ezETH) | 7.6 | Fee split and withdrawal delays published layer by layer |
| 2 |  ether.fi (eETH / weETH) | 7.2 | A long audit record and plain slashing disclosure |
| 3 |  YieldNest (ynETH) | 6.8 | Open BSD code backed by a long list of dated audits |
| 4 |  EigenLayer | 6.6 | A long audit record and plain slashing disclosure |
| 5 |  Symbiotic | 6.6 | Audit disclosure and documented slashing mechanics |
| 6 |  Mellow | 6.0 | Audit disclosure: dated reports from six firms on one page |
| 7 |  Kelp DAO (rsETH) | 5.4 | A long audit record and two published exit routes |
| 8 |  Swell Restaking (rswETH) | 4.6 | A 10% reward fee that matches the live contract setting |
| 9 |  Eigenpie (mLRT) | 3.6 | A published fee and three linked audits; exits paused |
Best Liquid Restaking Protocols, ranked by score
Renzo's ezETH scores 7.6 and leads liquid restaking, the plain average of five equally weighted criteria. A published 10% reward fee, itemized exit delays and four named auditors carry the score; a BUSL-1.1 licence and general slashing disclosure hold it back. Based on primary sources checked on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Commission clarity 9/10: 10% of restaking rewards, split 50/50 treasury and operators
- Exit 9/10: beacon, EigenLayer and Renzo queue delays each stated, with expected totals
- Audit disclosure 9/10: reports from Halborn, Sigma Prime, Code4rena and Nethermind
- States that 100% of EigenLayer rewards are passed through to holders
Cons
- Licence 5/10: contracts under BUSL-1.1 until the 1 December 2026 change to MIT
- Slashing 6/10: slashing acknowledged, but restaked-service conditions are not detailed
- No insurance or loss-absorbing reserve is described
- Instant-withdrawal fee bounds are not published; protocol withdrawals are mainnet only
ether.fi (eETH / weETH) scores 7.2/10 in liquid restaking after a re-score from current sources, carried by nine named audit firms, a plain slashing page with named cover, and two documented exit routes. It no longer publishes the fee it takes, and eETH and weETH are no longer restaked after the 2026 EigenLayer wind-down. Basis: desk research, 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Audits: nine named firms; the staking registry holds 31 dated reports, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Slashing page quantifies validator-level penalties and names Nexus Mutual cover up to 15,000 ETH
- Exit: an instant route with a 0.3% fee readable on-chain, plus a fee-free queued withdrawal
- Licence: MIT stated in the README and in the header of each core contract
Cons
- Commission: no current page states the reward split or the protocol fee rate
- eETH and weETH no longer carry restaking exposure; the EigenLayer position was wound down in 2026
- Instant exit depends on buffer liquidity and a rate limit; queued withdrawals have no stated time
- The README links a LICENSE file that is missing from the repository root
YieldNest scores 6.8 in liquid restaking for ynETH, on a BSD 3-Clause licence, dated audits and an explanation of how AVS slashing works that has thinned since the last check. Its main weakness is cost: a protocol fee and a withdrawal fee are documented, but neither rate is published. The score rests on desk research of YieldNest's documentation and code, checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Protocol code released under the BSD 3-Clause open-source licence (licence mark 9)
- Dated audit reports from ChainSecurity, Zokyo, Composable Security and NFR Audits for 2024 and 2025, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Documentation explains that AVSs define their own slashing conditions and lists unintended slashing as an evaluation risk
- Withdrawal flow specified step by step, including the 50,400-block EigenLayer delay and two faster exit routes
Cons
- Protocol fee is a basis-point contract setting with no published current rate (commission mark 4)
- Withdrawal fee is recorded in each claim NFT, but its size is not stated
- Native exit takes roughly a week or more, and requests cannot be cancelled once made
- Slashing explanation now sits only in pages labeled legacy, with no insurance described (slashing mark cut from 8 to 7)
EigenLayer scores 6.6/10 in liquid restaking after a re-score from current sources, with 25 published audits, blunt slashing documentation and a fixed 14-day exit escrow. Commission, which varies by operator around a 10% default, and a delayed-open licence hold it back. Basis: desk research, checked 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Audits: 25 reports from four named firms, March 2023 to May 2026, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Slashing disclosure: says slashing need not be provable on-chain and explains burn and redistribution
- Says slashed native ETH stays permanently locked in EigenPods and cannot be redistributed
- Exit: a 14-day escrow (100,800 blocks) read directly from the DelegationManager contract
Cons
- Commission: the operator rate is only a 10% default, and opted-in AVSs for the 20% protocol fee are not named
- No insurance or cover for slashed stake is described
- No instant exit at the protocol level; stake stays slashable throughout the 14-day escrow
- Business Source License 1.1; code after 6 February 2024 does not convert to MIT until 6 February 2027
Symbiotic scores 6.6 in liquid restaking, up from 5.4 after three marks were re-scored on current documentation. A full audit mark, clear slashing mechanics and a converted licence are offset by fees and exit times that vary by vault. Checked 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Audit disclosure 10/10: ten firms and two contests, dated 2024 to 2026, Core V2 included
- Slashing 7/10: per-vault slashing mode fixed at deployment, with stake-capped slashes
- Cantina bug bounty of up to $500,000 for Core and Rewards
- Licence 7/10: core licence change date to GPL-2.0-or-later (19 July 2026) has passed
Cons
- Commission clarity 4/10: fee caps published, but each vault owner sets the actual rates
- Exit 5/10: one to two epochs, with epoch length and adapter recall varying by vault
- Funds stay slashable until the end of the epoch after a withdrawal request
- Core V2 files still carry BUSL-1.1 headers, so their conversion is unconfirmed
Mellow scores 6.0 in liquid restaking, the plain average of five equally weighted criteria, up from 5.6 after its exit mark was re-scored. A full mark for audit disclosure is held back mainly by fees that each vault sets for itself. Based on primary sources checked on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Audit disclosure 10/10: dated reports from Nethermind, Sherlock and MixBytes on Core Vaults
- Earlier architectures carry named reports from StateMind, ChainSecurity and Decurity too
- Lido Earn risk text names $5 million first-loss capital and says it is not insurance
- Exit 6/10: EarnETH withdrawals typically take about three days and pay out in wstETH
Cons
- Commission clarity 4/10: fee types documented, but each vault owner sets the rates
- Redemption requests cannot be cancelled, and other vaults set their own intervals
- Pages read do not explain how restaking slashing would reach a vault's share price
- BUSL-1.1 limits production reuse until 2028 (legacy) and 2029 (Core Vaults)
Kelp DAO's rsETH scores 5.4/10 in liquid restaking after a re-score from current sources: 11 linked audits and two published exit routes, against a risk page that never mentions restaking slashing and a fee no longer stated in its docs. Bridging was cut back after the April 2026 exploit. Basis: desk research and on-chain reads, 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Audits: 11 linked reports from Sigma Prime, Code4rena, MixBytes and Bailsec, plus an Immunefi bounty
- Exit: free 15 to 21 day standard withdrawal and a 0.5% instant route, both published
- Licence file read directly: BUSL-1.1, converting to GPL v3 on 31 December 2028
- Protocol fee readable on-chain: 500 basis points (5%) of rewards on 1 November 2026
Cons
- Risk page never mentions slashing or insurance
- Commission: no reward fee is stated in the current documentation, and one fee setter now bypasses the timelock
- Standard withdrawal now takes 15 to 21 days, and exits run only on Ethereum
- April 2026 bridge exploit released 116,500 rsETH; bridging on 20+ networks retired since
Swell's rswETH scores 4.6 in liquid restaking, down from 4.8 after its exit mark was re-scored, the plain average of five equal criteria. Its fee is clear, but the code carries no licence, slashing is not addressed, and the exit estimate is stale. Checked 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Commission clarity 7/10: 10% fee on rewards, read on-chain as 5% treasury plus 5% operators
- Exit 6/10: app redemption, a buffer settling in about a day, and a DEX route all described
- Sigma Prime assessments are public, with a bug bounty of up to $250,000
- Fee is taken from rewards, not from deposited ETH
Cons
- Licence 1/10: no LICENSE file, and the rswETH contract header reads "UNLICENSED"
- Slashing 3/10: no account of how EigenLayer slashing would reach rswETH holders
- Exit fell from 7 to 6: the 21-day estimate assumes a 7-day EigenLayer delay, now 14 days
- Fee split can be changed by an access-control role; contract is upgradeable
Eigenpie's Ethereum deposit and withdrawal contracts have been paused since 28 October 2026, and no reason has been published, so holders cannot currently redeem through Eigenpie. Re-scored from current sources, it scores 3.6/10, last in liquid restaking: a published fee and three linked audits, but no slashing disclosure and no licence file. Basis: desk research and on-chain checks, 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Commission: 10% rewards fee published for the P2P node-operator route
- Audits: three linked reports by BlockSec, PeckShield (v1.0) and AstraSec
- Isolation stated plainly: each mLRT is minted against one specific LST, not a basket
- Verified contract source on Sourcify, labeled GPL-3.0-or-later
Cons
- Exit: deposits and withdrawals on Ethereum paused on-chain since 28 Oct 2026, with no published reason
- Slashing by AVSs is never addressed in the documentation; no insurance is described
- No public repository or licence file
- No fee stated for the InfStones route; the 5% vlEGP share is not reconciled with the 10%
Best liquid restaking options by use case
- You want the fee and every exit delay spelled out: Renzo ezETH. It publishes a 10% fee on restaking rewards split 50/50 between treasury and node operators (commission 9) and itemizes each layer of the wait, with expected totals of 7 days when its buffer is funded and 10 to 15 days when it is not (exit 9). Its slashing disclosure is general (6), and its terms exclude US residents.
- You want the longest audit record and a plain statement of slashing exposure: ether.fi eETH / weETH, with nine named audit firms and 31 dated reports in its staking registry (audit 10) and a dedicated slashing page that names Nexus Mutual cover of up to 15,000 ETH (slashing 8). Note that eETH and weETH are no longer restaked; see below. The fee rate is not published (commission 3).
- You want openly licensed restaking code: YieldNest ynETH, under the BSD 3-Clause licence (licence 9). Neither its protocol fee nor its withdrawal fee is published as a rate (commission 4).
- You restake directly on a base layer and want slashing explained without softening: EigenLayer documents that a slash need not be objectively attributable and holds every withdrawal in a 14-day escrow (slashing 7, exit 7). Symbiotic, at the same 6.6, fixes each vault's slashing mode at deployment and has the fuller audit list (audit 10), but fees and epochs vary by vault.
- You need a stated instant exit price: Kelp DAO rsETH offers an instant withdrawal in under two minutes for 0.5%, alongside a free standard route of 15 to 21 days (exit 7). Its risk page does not mention slashing (slashing 2).
Eigenpie is not listed for any use case: its Ethereum deposit and withdrawal contracts have been paused since 28 October 2026, with no published reason, so holders cannot redeem through it.
ether.fi is ranked second but no longer restakes
ether.fi's own documentation now says eETH and weETH "do not include" restaking rewards or EigenLayer slashing exposure. It reported that less than 1% of protocol assets were still restaked in August 2026, with the rest to be removed by the end of the third quarter. In practice eETH and weETH are now plain liquid staking tokens, marked here against the restaking rubric. Their slashing mark of 8 rewards a clear statement that only Ethereum validator slashing applies; it is not a rating of restaking risk management. Restaking at ether.fi now survives only in weETHs, an opt-in vault that restakes on Symbiotic with its own slashing, counterparty and liquidity risks, and that product is not part of this entry. The rank stays at second because the scores follow the published criteria. If you specifically want restaking exposure, eETH and weETH no longer provide it.
How the ranking works
Each entry is marked 0 to 10 on five criteria from the liquid restaking rubric, each worth 20%:
- Commission clarity: a fee on restaking rewards stated as a figure, ideally with where it goes. A rate that exists only as a contract parameter or varies by vault scores lower.
- Slashing & risk disclosure: whether the extra slashing conditions restaking adds are explained, what is being secured, and whether any cover exists. A generic warning scores low.
- Exit & redemption: the full unbonding period, which stacks the beacon-chain exit queue on the restaking-layer delay, plus any instant route and exit fee.
- Licence & code openness: read from the repository's licence file. An open-source licence scores highest, a delayed-open Business Source License mid-table, and a missing licence file lowest.
- Audit disclosure: reports published with the firms named; six or more named firms with reports earns the top mark.
The overall score is the plain average of the five marks, rounded to one decimal; every criterion carries equal weight. Renzo's 9, 6, 9, 5 and 9 total 38, and 38 divided by 5 is 7.6. Ties are listed alphabetically, which places EigenLayer above Symbiotic at 6.6. Marks were checked against documentation, repositories and contract reads on 1 November 2026. This is desk research, not test deposits. Marks are re-checked on each update, and each review logs what moved and why. The full method is on our ratings methodology page.
What changed in this update
| Protocol | Now | Before | What moved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Renzo (ezETH) | 7.6 | 7.6 | No change |
| ether.fi (eETH / weETH) | 7.2 | 5.6 | Audit 2 to 10, slashing 3 to 8, exit 6 to 7; commission 8 to 3, licence 9 to 8 |
| YieldNest (ynETH) | 6.8 | 7.0 | Slashing 8 to 7: the direct AVS slashing warning left the docs |
| EigenLayer | 6.6 | 4.6 | Audit 2 to 9 (25 reports, four firms); commission 2 to 5 |
| Symbiotic | 6.6 | 5.4 | Commission 2 to 4, exit 3 to 5, licence 5 to 7 |
| Mellow | 6.0 | 5.6 | Exit 4 to 6: EarnETH now states about three days |
| Kelp DAO (rsETH) | 5.4 | 5.0 | Audit 5 to 9, exit 6 to 7; commission 7 to 4 |
| Swell Restaking (rswETH) | 4.6 | 4.8 | Exit 7 to 6: its 21-day estimate predates the current 14-day restaking delay |
| Eigenpie (mLRT) | 3.6 | 2.0 | Commission 2 to 6, audit 2 to 6; exit stays 2 while paused |
Two commission marks fell because figures the earlier reviews relied on are no longer published: ether.fi's 90/5/5 reward split appears on no current page, and Kelp's documentation no longer states its 10% fee, while its contracts apply 5%. Symbiotic's licence rose because its core repository's change date to GPL-2.0-or-later passed on 19 July 2026. Karak was withdrawn from the ranking because its site now redirects to the OpenGDP Foundation.
What the scores do not cover
- Yield, points and incentive tokens. None is scored. Points promise a future allocation of unknown value; counting them as yield overstates what you earn.
- Incidents. On 18 April 2026 a forged cross-chain message released 116,500 rsETH from Kelp's Ethereum bridge lockbox. Kelp said the Ethereum backing was intact. ether.fi paused its Liquid vaults for about a day afterwards as a precaution. Incident history carries no mark.
- Admin control. YieldNest's 3-of-5 Security Council multisig can upgrade contracts and set the fee with no listed timelock, and Kelp moved one fee setter out from behind its timelock. Governance is not scored.
- Market price. A restaking token can trade below its backing. ezETH fell sharply on some venues in April 2024, before protocol withdrawals were live.
- Vaults, operators and stacked fees. Symbiotic and Mellow fees, epochs and slashing modes differ by vault and are not graded one by one. A restaking token placed in front of a vault adds its own fee.
- Access. Renzo, Symbiotic, Mellow and Swell exclude US persons in their terms.
How to choose a liquid restaking token
- Confirm the token is still restaked, and where. ether.fi's main tokens are not; Mellow's newer vaults can use several venues.
- Find what is being secured and what can be slashed. If the docs only say "you may lose funds", treat that as missing disclosure.
- Add up the exit: beacon-chain queue, EigenLayer's 14-day escrow or the vault epoch, plus any protocol buffer. Stake usually stays slashable while you wait.
- Look for the fee as a published rate, not just a contract parameter or a net APY.
- Check whether deposits or withdrawals are paused, and the terms for your country.
- Compare against plain liquid staking in our liquid staking ranking, and work out net returns with our guide to staking returns after costs.
What is liquid restaking?
Restaking commits already-staked ETH as collateral for additional services, called AVSs on EigenLayer and networks on Symbiotic, in return for extra rewards. Liquid restaking wraps that position in a tradable receipt token, such as ezETH or rsETH. Each additional service can impose its own slashing conditions, so the extra reward comes with extra ways to lose principal on top of Ethereum's own penalties. EigenLayer and Symbiotic are the layers underneath; Renzo, Kelp, YieldNest, Swell and Eigenpie issue tokens that deposit into them.
Is restaking riskier than plain liquid staking?
Yes, by design. A liquid restaking token carries everything a liquid staking token does, plus the restaking layer's contracts, the slashing rules of every service it secures, and usually a longer exit, since EigenLayer adds a 14-day escrow during which stake can still be slashed. Whether that extra risk is acceptable depends on how plainly the protocol explains it, which is why slashing disclosure is one of the five criteria here.
How we score this category
Restaking layers extra slashing conditions on top of staking, so the yield you take on carries a risk plain staking does not. This rubric scores whether a protocol names its commission, explains that additional slashing surface rather than glossing over it, states its exit terms, and licenses its code openly. A protocol that documents the new risk honestly scores above one that markets only the extra yield.
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 on restaking rewards is published as a figure and split out. A stated percentage, ideally with where it goes, beats a dynamic fee described only as a parameter.
- Slashing & risk disclosure20% of the score
- Whether the additional slashing conditions restaking introduces are explained, what is being secured, and whether any insurance exists. Naming the extra risk plainly is the single most important thing a restaking protocol can document.
- Exit & redemption20% of the score
- The unbonding period — which stacks the beacon-chain exit queue on top of the restaking-layer delay — whether an instant route exists, and any exit fee.
- Licence & code openness20% of the score
- The licence on the protocol's own repository, read from the file. A recognised open-source licence scores highest; a delayed-open licence mid-table; a missing licence file lowest.
- Audit disclosure20% of the score
- Whether audit reports are published with the firms named. A long list of named firms scores far above a claim of having been audited by leading firms with none named.
What does not affect a score
Only the criteria above count. 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.
Frequently asked questions
How were the liquid restaking protocols in this ranking selected?
The page ranks the nine restaking layers and liquid restaking tokens that have a full review in this category, all on Ethereum. EigenLayer and Symbiotic are rated as layers even though they issue no token of their own. Karak was withdrawn because its site now redirects to another organization.
How is the liquid restaking score calculated?
Each entry gets a 0 to 10 mark on commission clarity, slashing and risk disclosure, exit and redemption, licence and code openness, and audit disclosure. The overall score is the plain average of the five, rounded to one decimal, with ties listed alphabetically. No criterion is weighted above the others.
Which restaking risk does the score not capture?
The score rates how well a protocol discloses slashing, not how likely a slash is or how large it could be. It also leaves out bridge incidents, admin and upgrade powers, and the token's market price. A high mark is not a safety guarantee.
What fees and country restrictions should I check before restaking?
Published fees here range from Renzo's stated 10% of restaking rewards to rates set per vault or readable only on-chain, as at Kelp, where the contracts applied 5% on 1 November 2026. Check any instant-exit fee too. Renzo, Symbiotic, Mellow and Swell exclude US persons in their terms.
Which option fits someone who wants to avoid restaking slashing?
A plain liquid staking token rather than a restaking one. Among the entries here, ether.fi's eETH and weETH say they no longer carry EigenLayer slashing exposure, though that also means no restaking rewards. Our liquid staking ranking compares tokens built for that purpose.
How old are the measurements in this ranking?
All marks were checked on 1 November 2026, and this page was reviewed on 6 November 2026. Status can change quickly, as Eigenpie's 28 October pause shows, and Renzo's licence is due to switch to MIT on 1 December 2026, which will trigger a re-check.
Rankings are editorial. Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.