DeFi tokens are usually compared to each other on things that are specific to DeFi: total value locked, yield, emissions, fee switches. Those comparisons are useful and they are also closed loops. They tell you how a lending protocol looks against another lending protocol. They do not tell you how it looks against anything else you own.

Our model does the other thing. It runs the same six weighted dimensions over every asset we rate, so a decentralized exchange, a lending market and a stablecoin protocol are measured by the same ruler as a payments chain or a smart contract platform. One number, one letter, and six component scores you can look at.

Here are ten DeFi tokens read from our research record on the morning of October 28, 2026, ordered by our score.

Our bands are published and they are simple:

One caveat belongs next to that, and it is not a footnote. Our framework also runs pass or fail disqualifier screens on top of the weighted score, and a failed screen places an asset in F at any score, including a score in the A band. A band tells you where a number sits. It does not tell you the number is the only thing deciding the letter.

The six dimensions, and what each is worth in the composite:

Each dimension is scored 0 to 5. Run the six scores through those weights and you get the published composite exactly. We checked that on all ten assets in this piece before publishing it, and you can check it on any of them yourself from the numbers below.

A decentralized lending and borrowing protocol running across several blockchain ecosystems: users supply assets into pooled liquidity markets and borrowers draw against posted collateral. In our record's words, it is "a multi-asset money market rather than an exchange or a standalone token network," and AAVE itself is the protocol's governance token.

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 4, Usage 5, Security 4, Ecosystem 5, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3. It is the only asset in this group our model scores 5 on on-chain usage, and the only one here carrying an A.

The governance token of a decentralized exchange built on an automated-market-maker design, where trading runs through liquidity pools rather than a central order-matching intermediary. Our record notes that the supplied profile "identifies governance as UNI's primary documented role and does not establish a clear fee, burn, or cash-flow entitlement for holders."

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 4, Ecosystem 5, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3.

Two lending protocols, two different designs, and our record gives them the same score. Compound's token coordinates governance over lending-market parameters such as supported assets, collateral factors and interest-rate models, and in our record's words "it is not described as a claim on deposits or lending revenue." Morpho is a permissionless lending platform built around noncustodial vaults and isolated markets, and our record says plainly that the supplied profile "does not explain what the token does or identify a value-accrual mechanism."

Dimension scores, Compound: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 4, Ecosystem 4, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3. Dimension scores, Morpho: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 4, Ecosystem 4, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3.

Those are not a typo. On October 28, 2026 our model scores these two assets identically on all six dimensions, which is why they land on the same composite. That is worth knowing about a scoring model: two protocols that look nothing alike to a user can look the same to a framework that is measuring something else.

A lending protocol oriented toward institutional borrowers and lender yield, with SYRUP connected to a newer product intended to open access to that lending engine. Our record says the supplied profile "does not specify SYRUP's supply, governance powers, distribution, or value-accrual mechanism."

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 4, Usage 4, Security 2, Ecosystem 3, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3. One of only two assets here our model scores 4 on the heaviest dimension, and the security score is the lowest in that column among the B-graded names on this list.

An automated market maker and decentralized exchange associated with BNB Chain, linked in our record to yield farming, perpetuals and several other product categories, with CAKE as the exchange-related token. Our record notes the available materials "do not establish additional functions for CAKE, such as governance, supply management or a specific mechanism for capturing platform value."

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 2, Ecosystem 4, Valuation 3, Market Structure 3.

A protocol built to simplify Curve-related yield optimization: liquidity providers deposit LP tokens to pursue boosted rewards without locking CRV themselves, and CVX works as a governance and reward token inside those fee, voting and distribution arrangements. Our record describes it as specialized rather than general-purpose infrastructure.

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 3, Ecosystem 3, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3.

The governance token of a protocol built around the USDS stablecoin, evolved from the Maker Protocol, with voting rights over system decisions and a staking engine connected to rewards and to USDS borrowing. Our record says the description available "does not provide detailed information about current activity, supply design, or the operation of its economic incentives."

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 2, Usage 4, Security 3, Ecosystem 4, Valuation 3, Market Structure 3. The lowest tokenomics score among the B-graded names here, carried by the strongest spread across the three lighter dimensions.

An automated market maker and liquidity provider on Solana, whose design links pooled liquidity to an on-chain central-limit-order-book system. Our record says the supplied material "does not fully specify the token's present utility, governance rights, supply structure, or value-accrual process."

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 3, Usage 4, Security 2, Ecosystem 4, Valuation 2, Market Structure 3. At 60.8 it sits 0.8 of a point above our B floor, which is less than one step on any dimension in the table.

A community decentralized exchange and DeFi hub spanning several EVM networks, with QUICK as the native ecosystem token and a described buyback and burn mechanism linked to protocol revenue. It is the only asset on this list our model grades C today.

Dimension scores: Tokenomics 2, Usage 4, Security 2, Ecosystem 3, Valuation 4, Market Structure 1. It carries the highest relative-valuation score on this list and the lowest market-structure score, which is a useful reminder that a C is a weighted result, not a single judgement.

Read the ten tokenomics scores in order: 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2. Now read the ten usage scores: 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4.

Our model's view of what these protocols do is consistent and fairly strong. Its view of what the token captures from that activity is more mixed, and it is the heaviest dimension in the framework at 28%. Our record's own descriptions keep arriving at the same sentence in different words: the supplied profile does not establish a fee, burn or cash-flow entitlement; does not identify a value-accrual mechanism; does not specify supply, governance powers or distribution.

We are not claiming that one observation explains any individual grade above. The composite is six weighted numbers and we have shown you all six for every asset here. What we are saying is narrower and more useful: when you research a DeFi token yourself, the question our record keeps running into is the one worth asking first. The protocol working is not the same thing as the token having a documented claim on the protocol working.

Between our October 27 and October 28, 2026 records, Quickswap moved from 52.0 to 54.4. The letter did not change, and our record attributes the whole 2.4 point rise to one weighted dimension:

Relative Valuation, from 3 to 4 on the 0 to 5 scale, worth 2.4 points of a 2.4 point move.

That number is checkable rather than asserted. Relative Valuation carries a 12% weight, each dimension runs 0 to 5, so one step is one fifth of 12, which is 2.4.

Our model's change note on that row, quoted exactly as our record writes it: "valuation: 3→4; Supplied evidence or prior assessment context changed." The driver our record names is our input data.

Read that plainly, because the distinction matters more than the move does: what our model was given about Quickswap changed, and the dimension score moved with it. That is a different sentence from "Quickswap changed," and we are not going to blur the two. The change note is honest about its own limits, naming the dimension and not a reason particular to this project, and we are not going to invent one to fill the gap.

It is not every DeFi token we rate, and it was not picked by a ranking of the sector. It is ten named DeFi assets from our record, read on one morning.

It is also not a ranking position. We have ordered these by our score, which is the comparable number, and we are not printing where each asset sits in our overall ranking in this piece. A position is a comparison against everything else, and it moves when either side moves; a score and six dimension scores are the asset's own reading.

And it is not advice to any individual. These are our model's published readings on named assets with a date on them. What anyone does with that is theirs.

Every asset above has its own page, each one showing the same letter and score our record carries, with its own "data as of" date:

Aave / Uniswap / Compound / Morpho / Maple Finance / PancakeSwap / Convex Finance / Sky / Raydium / Quickswap

Quickswap moved 2.4 points overnight on one dimension and nobody holding it got a notification from us unless they asked for one. That is what CryptoGrade Alerts is for: you pick the assets, we tell you when our grade on one of them changes. It is free with a free CryptoGrade account, and if you do not have one, you can create it here.

All grades, tier names, scores, dimension scores, weights and attribution above are CryptoGrade's own published readings from our research record on the mornings of October 27 and October 28, 2026, and they change.

CryptoGrade publishes investment research, asset grades, scores and ratings. Nothing here is individualized investment advice, and no one at CryptoGrade is a registered investment adviser or broker-dealer. Invest wisely with AI-powered crypto scores and guidance.