SushiSwap Review

SushiSwap is rated in our decentralized exchange ranking, which scores nine protocols on five equally weighted criteria. This entry covers the SushiSwap v2 and v3 pools as described by Sushi's documentation, its SDK deployment configuration and its GitHub repositories on 1 November 2026. The basis is desk research; we did not trade or provide liquidity.

How SushiSwap scores in decentralized exchanges

Every criterion carries the same weight, so the overall score is the plain average: (6 + 6 + 5 + 9 + 3) ÷ 5 = 29 ÷ 5 = 5.8 out of 10.

This is a re-score. The previous entry, checked on 24 July 2026, stood at 6.2. Fee transparency fell from 9 to 6. The FAQ that set out the v2 split no longer renders an answer, and the remaining pages contradict each other. Immutability & governance rose from 4 to 5 because the governance page states that protocol changes need an Operations multisig. Chain coverage stays at 9, but it now rests on a 22-network deployment configuration instead of the old, self-dated claim of 38 chains.

Strongest criterion: chain coverage (9)

Sushi's chain documentation says v2 and v3 support is defined by the deployment configuration in its sushi SDK. That repository was last updated on 8 October 2026. It lists 22 production networks for v2 and 21 for v3, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Optimism, Linea, Scroll, Sonic, Katana and Robinhood Chain. It marks another ten networks, among them Polygon zkEVM, Harmony and Metis, as deprecated. Only Curve, at 30, documents more networks in this ranking. The figure measures reach, not whether every network has useful liquidity.

Weakest criteria

Audit disclosure (3): a deficiency

Sushi's security page states that it "regularly engages with top-tier auditors," but it names no firm and links no report. Under this rubric an unnamed audit cannot be checked, so the mark is 3, the lowest audit mark in this ranking. Sushi does run an Immunefi bug bounty covering the v2 and v3 AMM contracts and its router, paying up to $200,000. A bounty is useful, but it does not replace published audits.

Fee transparency (6): published, then contradicted

Two Sushi pages describe the v2 fee differently. The AMM introduction says the 0.30% fee "is distributed to liquidity providers." The tokenomics page says 0.05 percentage points of a typical 0.30% fee buy SUSHI for xSUSHI stakers, which would leave 0.25% for LPs. On a $1,000 v2 swap, the trader pays $3.00 under either description. Whether $3.00 or $2.50 reaches liquidity providers depends on which page you read. The sushi.com FAQ entry on trading fees, which the previous review cited, returned a page with its question but no answer when we checked.

For v3, the AMM page gives "e.g., 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30%, 1.00%." Sushi's SDK confirms those four tiers and adds 2% and 4% tiers on Katana only. Neither source says how a v3 fee is divided. The mark stays above the cap-only standard because discrete figures do exist. It falls below the protocols that publish a consistent split.

Licence & code openness (6): inherited and incomplete

The v3-core LICENSE file is Uniswap Labs' Business Source License 1.1 for "Uniswap V3 Core," carried over from the fork. Its change date of 1 April 2023 has passed, and under its own terms that converts the code to GPL-2.0-or-later. GitHub's classifier still reports NOASSERTION for the repository. The v2-core repository has no licence file at all, so that code comes with no written grant of rights. The mark is unchanged.

Immutability & governance (5): partly stated

The governance page says changes within the core team's purview, including changes to the SushiSwap protocol, must pass an Operations multisig with at least three signatures. Dev-fund spending needs 4 of 6 signatures on an elected Treasury Council multisig. No page we read says which contracts can be upgraded or paused, or whether any timelock applies. That places SushiSwap above the protocols that are silent (4) and below PancakeSwap, which also states timelocks (6). Only core-team proposals can be binding, and they need a quorum of 5 million SUSHIPOWAH.

What the score does not cover

The rating does not measure execution, liquidity, the aggregator's routing quality, Blade pools, the launchpad or SUSHI as an investment. It also does not score the operator. Sushi's terms of service and FAQ pages rendered without their text when we checked on 1 November 2026, so we could not confirm which legal entity, if any, the terms name. The site's cookie notice names Sushi Labs only as the party processing visitor data. Before routing a trade, read how to compare DEXs for the costs this rubric leaves out.

SushiSwap vs PancakeSwap and Uniswap

The two other multi-chain EVM exchanges built on the same v2/v3 pool design are the closest comparison. Their marks below are as recorded on 1 November 2026.

The largest single gap is audit disclosure: both peers name their auditors and link the reports. SushiSwap's one edge is chain coverage, where it leads PancakeSwap and matches Uniswap.

Who this rating suits

The score is most relevant to someone who needs v2 or v3 pools on one of the many EVM networks SushiSwap reaches, including some that few other venues in this ranking cover. It is a weaker fit for anyone who wants to check audits, confirm where a fee goes, or rely on a clear statement of what the team can change. Because SushiSwap's contracts are not backed by named audits, our guide to avoiding wallet scams and phishing is worth reading for the approval risks you control yourself. A score is a measure of disclosure, not a recommendation.