MapMyExchange
Start with the network holding your funds, then compare routes, execution costs and received tokens. The suitable DEX depends on pair and size.
Compare products, costs and ways to move your funds.
UniswapPools and versions for comparing specific routes.
JupiterRoute aggregation with distinct trading modes.
PancakeSwapV2, V3 and StableSwap require inspecting the route.
Reading order follows use and ecosystem, not ascending fees. Each quote depends on pair, size and route.
| Platform | Network and mechanism | Fee model | What to compare | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Uniswap Swaps · supported networks | AMM; pool network and version | V2 0.30%; V3 tiers; configurable V4 | Net output, gas and interface charges | |
| 2Jupiter Swaps · Solana | Solana routing | Ultra 0–0.5%; Manual without Jupiter commission | Separate route, network and tip costs | |
| 3PancakeSwap Swaps · pool and network | AMM and supported routes | V2 0.25% per hop; V3 tiers | Version, depth and minimum received | |
4 Curve FinanceSwaps · correlated assets | StableSwap and selected pool | Pool-specific; dynamic on StableSwap NG | Balance, parity and token representation | |
5 RaydiumSwaps · Solana | CLMM, CPMM and AMM V4 | V4 0.25%; pool-specific CLMM/CPMM | Mint, liquidity and token charges |
Rates apply to the stated product. Execution, network and the funding route also affect the final cost.
Alternatives are selected by network and liquidity model. We compare routes and cost structures rather than treating one rate as universal for every pool.
This selection compares trading workflows; positions are neither scores nor a guaranteed lowest-total-cost order.
Methodology →Transparency →Locate the funds and the asset’s intended destination first.
Identify version, hops and execution mechanism.
Compare equal sizes including separately charged costs.
Receiving wallet, spending contracts and available gas.
A swap exchanges one asset for another through a supported protocol route. It does not automatically create a loan or futures position. This selection compares where to make that exchange: Uniswap across its supported networks, Jupiter for Solana routing, PancakeSwap for its pools and networks, Curve for correlated assets and Raydium for Solana pools. No universal cost order applies to every pair.
First identify where funds are held and where the output asset is needed. A quote on another chain may require bridging, additional gas and another operational step. Comparing supported routes on the current network can be more useful than chasing a headline percentage elsewhere. The DEX practical guide explains connection, approval and swapping.
Uniswap has no single rate for every swap. V2 uses 0.30%, V3 supports several pool tiers and V4 permits configured or dynamic fees. A route can use multiple pools. Read the route’s cost alongside gas and any applicable interface charge. Internal distribution between the protocol and liquidity providers is not an additional full fee to add again.
PancakeSwap separates V2 at 0.25% per hop from V3 tiers of 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.25% and 1%. StableSwap and other routes have their own conditions. The platform name alone is insufficient: one token may trade across pools with different depth and pricing. Inspect the actual route and minimum output for the intended size.
Simplified hypothetical example: a single 0.30% pool charges 3 units on 1,000, compared with 2.50 at 0.25%. The apparent saving is 0.50 before gas, impact and quote differences. A lower-fee pool with a worse executable price can deliver fewer tokens. The total-cost guide helps avoid counting charges already included in output twice.
Jupiter compares Solana swap routes. Its modes do not share one rate: Ultra publishes a 0%–0.5% range depending on pair and conditions; Manual market mode adds no Jupiter commission, while network expenses, possible tips and route costs remain. Mobile has separate terms. Gasless can recover execution costs from the token rather than making the transaction cost-free.
Raydium offers Solana pools with concentrated liquidity, CPMM and AMM V4 models. V4 uses 0.25%, while other pools have different tiers. Splitting that fee between providers and protocol does not create additional charges on the trade. Some tokens also impose transfer charges, separate from pool costs.
An aggregated quote is useful for comparing output on a particular size; examining a pool helps explain where liquidity comes from. Keep SOL for transactions that require it and verify the token mint. Matching names and tickers do not establish token identity. The Solana guide covers the network in more detail.
Curve deserves particular attention for correlated assets such as certain stablecoins. StableSwap is designed around those pools, but does not guarantee that every asset retains equal value. Composition, trade size and deviation from parity can change pricing and dynamic fees.
Do not choose a pool merely because both tickers suggest dollars. Compare issuer, representation, network and each asset’s exit route. Bridged and native tokens can share an economic reference while having different exposures. The USDT and USDC guide distinguishes quote currencies, stablecoins and networks.
Compare quotes for the same amount within a short interval. Price impact is the trade’s effect on liquidity; slippage tolerance limits deterioration relative to the accepted reference. Raising tolerance creates neither liquidity nor a lower commission. If a larger size sharply reduces the rate, reconsider route and size before signing.
In a normal swap, output reaches the wallet specified by the transaction route. There usually is no exchange balance requiring a second withdrawal button. Sending to another wallet or CEX afterwards is a separate transfer with compatible network and destination. Exiting a liquidity position, if you opened one, is a different action again.
For margin trading, use the perpetual DEX ranking. Hyperliquid and Aster have separate operating guides; commercial relationships do not turn them into AMM alternatives in this table. The DEX directory retains all ten reviews for comparing platform types.
Use the same input token, representation, amount and network. Native USDC is not automatically interchangeable with a bridged version, and output on another chain may not meet the same need. Record received tokens, charges deducted from the amount and those paid separately by the wallet. Do not add a cost twice if the quote already includes it.
Refresh near signing because reserves and prices change. An old screenshot from one platform is not comparable with a fresh quote elsewhere. If using the asset requires a bridge, include that step and verify its destination. Buying a token cheaply on a network where you cannot use it does not complete the intended transaction.
It depends on network, pair, size, route and timing. Compare net output and add charges not included. A smaller percentage does not guarantee more tokens.
The output token is normally already in the wallet. Sending it elsewhere requires a compatible transfer and gas. Liquidity positions and margin balances work differently.
No. Pool fees, gas, tips, token transfer charges and execution differences can remain. Separate the interface’s charge from the route’s cost.