1inch

Name: 1inch
Brand: 1inch

Leader

Integrated DeFi. Financial freedom for everyone.

Est 2019|Valuation $2.3B|Raised $189.8M

LinkedIn 64K|Website|Web traffic 159K|FTEs 163|HQ Tortola, British Virgin Islands

MarketsDEX Aggregators & DeFi Liquidity Routing

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

#### 1inch vs Matcha (0x) - Matcha documents taker fees by mode/pair, which can be clearer for mainstream users. - 1inch often emphasizes no protocol fee, but net cost still depends on route and pools. - For integrators, 1inch’s Developer Portal pricing is published and may be attractive for teams that want bundled Web3 APIs. #### 1inch vs KyberSwap - KyberSwap help materials describe network fees and its approach to positive-slippage surplus and certain chain-specific swap fees. - Users sensitive to surplus capture might prefer aggregators that do not capture surplus, while others may not consider it material if quoted outputs are reliable. #### 1inch vs CoW Swap (high-level) - CoW Swap uses a batch auction/solver model that is often discussed for MEV protection; 1inch markets fusion/intent-style swapping framed around MEV mitigation.

Market share / adoption trends

This report did not include a current market share chart for the latest period across aggregators. Historical press snapshots and vendor materials indicate ongoing product expansion (for example, API evolution), but a current independent ranking was not established from the collected sources.

	1inch	Matcha (0x)	KyberSwap (Aggregator)
Starting Price	Consumer dApp: no explicit subscription; costs = gas + route fees; Developer API plans range from free to paid enterprise tiers	Consumer dApp: built-in fees depending on mode/pair	Swap fees can apply on some chains; also captures positive slippage surplus; network gas applies
Suitable For	Users seeking route optimization; partners embedding swap APIs; larger trades where splitting helps	Users wanting simple UX with documented taker fees	Users wanting aggregator + Kyber ecosystem; certain chain coverage and swap mechanisms
Key Strength	Broad aggregation and API platform; wallet UX cited positively in reviews; published security communications and incident writeups	Transparent fee schedule and integration with 0x infrastructure	Documented fee mechanics; governance and LP fee structure clarity
Key Weakness	Security incidents around resolvers/UI dependencies; support complaints; “no fees” messaging can be misleading	Fees may be higher than a pure “no extra fee” aggregator depending on mode; execution varies by chain	Fee complexity; positive-slippage capture may be viewed negatively by users who expect to keep it

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

1inch vs Matcha (0x)

Matcha documents taker fees by mode/pair, which can be clearer for mainstream users.
1inch often emphasizes no protocol fee, but net cost still depends on route and pools.
For integrators, 1inch’s Developer Portal pricing is published and may be attractive for teams that want bundled Web3 APIs.

1inch vs KyberSwap

KyberSwap help materials describe network fees and its approach to positive-slippage surplus and certain chain-specific swap fees.
Users sensitive to surplus capture might prefer aggregators that do not capture surplus, while others may not consider it material if quoted outputs are reliable.

1inch vs CoW Swap (high-level)

CoW Swap uses a batch auction/solver model that is often discussed for MEV protection; 1inch markets fusion/intent-style swapping framed around MEV mitigation.

Market share / adoption trends

	1inch	Matcha (0x)	KyberSwap (Aggregator)
Starting Price	Consumer dApp: no explicit subscription; costs = gas + route fees; Developer API plans range from free to paid enterprise tiers	Consumer dApp: built-in fees depending on mode/pair	Swap fees can apply on some chains; also captures positive slippage surplus; network gas applies
Suitable For	Users seeking route optimization; partners embedding swap APIs; larger trades where splitting helps	Users wanting simple UX with documented taker fees	Users wanting aggregator + Kyber ecosystem; certain chain coverage and swap mechanisms
Key Strength	Broad aggregation and API platform; wallet UX cited positively in reviews; published security communications and incident writeups	Transparent fee schedule and integration with 0x infrastructure	Documented fee mechanics; governance and LP fee structure clarity
Key Weakness	Security incidents around resolvers/UI dependencies; support complaints; “no fees” messaging can be misleading	Fees may be higher than a pure “no extra fee” aggregator depending on mode; execution varies by chain	Fee complexity; positive-slippage capture may be viewed negatively by users who expect to keep it