PancakeSwap Review

PancakeSwap is rated in our decentralized exchange ranking, which scores nine protocols on five equally weighted criteria. This entry covers the protocol as its own documentation, audits page and GitHub repositories described it on 1 November 2026. The basis is desk research; we did not trade or provide liquidity.

How PancakeSwap scores in decentralized exchanges

Every criterion carries the same weight, so the overall score is the plain average: (8 + 9 + 6 + 8 + 10) ÷ 5 = 41 ÷ 5 = 8.2 out of 10.

This is a re-score. The previous entry, checked on 24 July 2026, stood at 7.6. Fee transparency rose from 6 to 8 after we found the v2 and v3 tiers and their splits on PancakeSwap's pools page. The earlier check had read only the Infinity caps. Chain coverage rose from 7 to 8 because the documentation now names eleven networks. The other three marks are unchanged.

Strongest criteria: audits and licence

Audit disclosure (10)

PancakeSwap's audits page lists 25 EVM and 7 Aptos reports, each linked. They are dated by month or year and cover products from the 2021 factory and router to the CAKE token in 2026. Ten firms are named on the page: Cyfrin, BlockSec, HashDit, PeckShield, SlowMist, Burrasec, Pashov, OtterSec, Zellic and Halborn. The two newest core entries, Infinity Core and Infinity Periphery (2024), carry no firm name on the page itself. They link to GitHub folders whose reports are filed under Hexens, OtterSec and Zellic, so the auditor can still be identified and checked. No other protocol in this ranking links as many reports. An audit is still not insurance, and it covers only the code version reviewed.

Licence & code openness (9)

The Infinity core repository carries the GNU General Public License v2.0, a recognized open-source licence with no change date and no revocation clause. GitHub detects no licence on the v3 contracts repository, so v3 code is visible but comes with no written grant of rights. That gap keeps the mark at 9 rather than 10.

Weaker criteria: fees and upgrade control

Fee transparency (8): mostly published, partly bounded

PancakeSwap's pools page gives a fixed 0.25% fee for v2, of which 0.17% goes to liquidity providers (LPs). The other 0.08% is not attributed there. For v3 on EVM chains, it lists four tiers with an exact split. The 0.01% tier pays 67% to LPs, 15% to the CAKE burn and 18% to the treasury. The 0.05% tier pays 66%, 15% and 19%. The 0.25% and 1% tiers pay 68%, 23% and 9%. On a $1,000 swap through a 0.25% v3 pool, the pool fee is $2.50: $1.70 to LPs, about $0.58 to the burn and about $0.23 to the treasury. The Solana v3 pools use 18 tiers from 0.01% to 4% with an 84/8/8 split.

Infinity is the gap. Static-fee Infinity pools set their fee at creation and cannot change it. The documentation still publishes only ceilings: up to 100% for CLAMM pools and 10% for LBAMM pools, with the protocol taking 33% of the LP fee, capped at 0.4%. A trader routed through an Infinity pool has to read the fee on the swap screen. The rubric scores discrete tiers above upper bounds, and PancakeSwap publishes both, so the mark sits between the two.

Immutability & governance (6): stated in part

The documentation home page says the team uses multisig for all contracts and that the contracts are time-locked. It does not say which contracts can be upgraded, paused or replaced. It also does not name multisig thresholds or timelock durations. Governance gives CAKE holders a vote, but only the core team can submit binding proposals and there is no quorum. This is partial disclosure, not a measured adverse finding, which is why the mark sits mid-table.

Chain coverage (8)

The documentation names eleven networks: BNB Chain, Ethereum, Solana, Base, Arbitrum, Aptos, ZKsync, Linea, Monad, Robinhood and opBNB. That is wider than the single-chain protocols in this ranking, but below Uniswap's 21 and SushiSwap's 22 active networks.

What the score does not cover

The rating does not measure execution quality, liquidity depth, interface design, perpetuals (run on Aster's infrastructure), tokenized stocks, the lottery or prediction games, or CAKE as an investment. It does not cover the operator either. PancakeSwap's terms name no legal entity and send disputes to Hong Kong arbitration, which this rubric does not score. Tokens and pools can be created by anyone, so check contract addresses before trading. See our guide on avoiding wallet scams and phishing.

PancakeSwap vs Uniswap and SushiSwap

The two other multi-chain EVM exchanges in the ranking are the closest comparison. Their marks below are as recorded on 1 November 2026.

PancakeSwap beats Uniswap on licence and audits. Uniswap's narrow lead comes from stating plainly that its core contracts cannot be upgraded or paused, and from wider documented deployment. The gap to SushiSwap is mostly audit disclosure. Raydium also scores 8.2. Ties are listed alphabetically, so PancakeSwap appears first.

Who this rating suits

The score suits someone who wants named, linked audits and a genuinely open-source core, and who trades on BNB Chain or one of the other listed networks. It is weaker for a user who needs to know a pool's exact fee before routing through Infinity, or who wants a clear statement of what the team can change after deployment. If pool fees and slippage are new to you, read how to compare DEXs first. A high score here reflects disclosure, not a guarantee that a given trade or pool is safe.