Pendle Review

How Pendle scores in yield aggregators

Pendle sits in our yield aggregator ranking, although it does not compound rewards. It splits a yield-bearing token into a principal token (PT) and a yield token (YT) that trade on Pendle's own AMM, so a depositor can fix a rate or trade future yield. This entry rates Pendle V2 only. Boros, Pendle's separate funding-rate market, is not scored. The basis is desk research of Pendle's documentation, its terms of use and the pendle-core-v2-public GitHub repository, checked on November 6, 2026. No position was opened. 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: (8 + 8 + 9 + 6 + 6) / 5 = 37 / 5 = 7.4. The previous overall was 6.0.

Three marks changed at this check. Licence & code openness rose from 5 to 8 because the BUSL change date in Pendle's own licence file has passed, so the file now grants GPL-2.0-or-later, and the contract files carry GPL headers. Audit disclosure rose from 8 to 9 after we read the audits folder, which maps reports from nine auditors to specific components. Custody & control rose from 3 to 6 because the current terms now state the non-custodial basis that the earlier review could not find.

Strongest criteria: audits, fees and the converted licence

Audit disclosure is the highest mark at 9. The mark stops short of 10 because the docs security page has not kept up. It names Ackee, Dedaub, Dingbats and Code4rena wardens, gives no dates, and does not list the later reports that sit in the folder it links to. An audit lowers risk; it does not remove it, and Pendle's FAQ says it is not responsible for losses from exploits in third-party contracts.

Fee disclosure scores 8. The 5% YT fee is a single published rate that covers points as well as yield. Of swap fees, 20% goes to liquidity providers; the remainder and all YT fees go 80% to PENDLE buybacks, 10% to the treasury and 10% to operations. What keeps the mark below the top is that the swap fee tier is a per-market setting read from the market's specs panel, not a figure in the docs.

The licence mark of 8 reflects a licence that has converted. Pendle's LICENSE file still opens with the BUSL notice that it "is not an Open Source license", but its own parameters set July 1, 2023 as the change date to GPL-2.0-or-later. The mark is not 10 because a reader has to apply that clause to reach the open-source grant, GitHub does not recognise the file, and the GPL-3.0 headers in the code do not match the GPL-2.0 change licence.

Weakest criteria: admin controls and the APY basis

Custody & control at 6 is a measured result, not a research gap. The non-custodial statement and immutable markets support it. Against that, the architecture docs say newer SY contracts are upgradeable so mechanisms can be adjusted without a market migration, and that external SY deployers should hand ownership to Pendle's pause controller. The terms add that Pendle may restrict access, including by blacklisting a wallet, and that the contracts are subject to modification. We found no published timelock or signer set for these powers. Peers that document a timelock or state that the team cannot reach deposits score higher here.

Strategy transparency at 6 reflects a gap in what is written. Pendle explains its mechanism well, but the FAQ describes the underlying APY only as a 7-day average of the underlying protocol and does not say whether the 5% YT fee is taken out of the displayed figure.

What the score does not cover

• Implied and underlying APYs, TVL and returns, which move with each market.
• The safety of the wrapped asset. PT and YT inherit every risk of the token underneath, and YT goes to zero at maturity.
• Selling PT before maturity, which happens at the market's implied rate and may give a worse result than the rate locked in.
• Boros, the PENDLE token and sPENDLE rewards.

Readers who lend against PT should also read our guide to how DeFi lending works, because leverage on PT adds liquidation risk.

Pendle vs Beefy and Idle Finance

Beefy scores 8.4, a point ahead. It matches Pendle on fees and licence, both 8, and is ahead on custody, audits and strategy transparency. Idle Finance scores 6.8 and matches Pendle on four criteria; the difference is Pendle's converted licence. Peer marks are as currently published and may change when those entries are rechecked.

Who it suits

The score suits a user who wants to fix a yield or trade future yield, and who values audit reports filed by component and a single published YT fee. It suits less well anyone who wants a documented timelock on admin powers, or a stated basis for the APY on screen. Check the fee tier in a market's specs and the risks of the wrapped asset before entering.