Jupiter Review

How Jupiter scores in decentralized exchanges

This entry rates Jupiter's spot swap aggregator on Solana, the v6 aggregator program and the Swap API behind jup.ag, in our decentralized exchange ranking. Leveraged trading is rated separately as Jupiter Perps. The basis is desk research of Jupiter's developer documentation, its GitHub organization and the program's on-chain account, checked on November 1, 2026. No swap was made. The category uses five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.

The overall score is the plain average: (9 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 10) ÷ 5 = 29 ÷ 5 = 5.8. On the scores currently recorded for the other eight protocols, Jupiter ties with Aerodrome and SushiSwap at 5.8 and, under the alphabetical tie rule, is listed between them in eighth place.

One mark changed on this pass. Audit disclosure rose from 3 to 10 because Jupiter's audits page now links 31 reports and names every firm; the July 2026 check found none. The other four marks were rechecked and stand, although the fee finding behind the 9 has been corrected, as explained below. The overall score moves from 4.4 to 5.8.

Strongest criteria: audits and fees

Audit disclosure (10)

The audits page in the developer docs lists 31 reports, each with a link, from 11 firms: Offside Labs, OtterSec, Sec3, Certora, Code4rena, Guardian, MixBytes, Neodyme, Zenith, Cantina and Pashov Audit Group. For the product rated here, Offside Labs reviewed the v6 swap program in April 2024 and October 2025, Sec3 reviewed the earlier v3 swap, and Offside Labs reviewed the JupiterZ request-for-quote engine in November 2024. Some older entries carry no date. The rubric asks for published reports with named firms, and this meets it in full, the standard that also gives PancakeSwap and Curve a 10. An audit reviews code at a point in time; it is not insurance.

Fee transparency (9)

The earlier review described Jupiter as charging zero protocol fees by default. That no longer describes the main swap path. On the Meta-Aggregator order-and-execute flow, Jupiter publishes a platform fee by pair: 0 basis points for buying JUP, JLP or jupSOL with SOL or a stablecoin and for pegged pairs, 2 for SOL to stablecoin, 5 for liquid staking token to stablecoin, 10 for everything else and 50 for tokens less than 24 hours old. On a $1,000 swap of a long-listed token into USDC, that is $1.00; into a token launched that day, $5.00. Every quote returns the total and platform fee in basis points. The Router build path used by developers carries no Jupiter swap fee.

The mark stays at 9 rather than 10 because the total can exceed the table: when Jupiter sponsors gas it recovers the cost through an extra charge with no stated rate, shown in the docs as 5 basis points of platform fee plus 7 for gasless support. Apps that add a referral fee of 50 to 255 basis points pay Jupiter 20% of it instead of the platform fee.

Weakest criteria: code, upgrades and chains

Licence & code openness (2)

The jup-ag GitHub organization publishes SDKs, API clients, a command-line tool and a Metis binary, plus forks of other projects' AMM code. No repository containing the source of the v6 aggregator program was found, so there is no licence on the core program to read. This is a deficiency, not a measurement gap: the routing logic is the part of an aggregator a user might most want to inspect.

Immutability & governance (4)

Neither the security page nor the swap documentation says whether the program can be upgraded or who controls it. The rubric scores that silence at 4. Reading the chain adds a fact the documentation leaves out. The program at JUP6LkbZbjS1jKKwapdHNy74zcZ3tLUZoi5QNyVTaV4 is owned by Solana's upgradeable loader, and its upgrade authority is a single address, CvQZZ23qYDWF2RUpxYJ8y9K4skmuvYEEjH7fK58jtipQ. On-chain data alone does not show whether that address is a multisig vault. The mark was not lowered, because the criterion grades what the protocol states and peers were not checked on chain; a published statement would raise it.

Chain coverage (4)

The swap aggregator and its API serve Solana only, matching the single-network marks for Raydium and Orca.

What the score does not cover

The rubric reads published disclosures. It does not measure route quality, fill rates against the other engines Jupiter queries, slippage or the size of gasless recoup charges. It also does not grade the terms of use, under which Jupiter says it does not serve wallets in the United States and 18 other listed places.

Jupiter vs Raydium and Orca

Both Solana pools it routes through score higher. Raydium leads on its Apache-licensed code and stated upgrade control, and Orca, with the same licence mark of 2, leads on its stated upgrade arrangement (7 against 4), while Jupiter marks higher on audits (10 against 9). The other rated aggregator, 1inch at 8.4, leads Jupiter mainly on open-licensed code, chain count and a stated non-upgradable design.

Who this rating suits

The score is most useful to Solana traders who want to know the fee before swapping and value an extensive, linked audit record. It is weaker for anyone who wants to read the routing program's code or know who can upgrade it, since neither is published. The score describes disclosure, not the quality of any individual trade.