15 services · Independently tested

Best Liquid Restaking Protocols 2026

The 15 leading liquid restaking protocols in 2026 — EtherFi, Renzo, Kelp, Puffer, and more. Scored on TVL, operator diversity, slashing exposure, and points-program transparency.

Last updated: August 14, 2026

Filter by:All Beginners Security Derivatives Defi

Jump to:#1 ether.fi (eETH)#2 Renzo (ezETH)#3 Kelp DAO (rsETH)#4 Puffer Finance (pufETH)#5 Swell (rswETH)#6 Eigenpie

🥇

ether.fi (eETH)

Best for: Largest liquid restaking protocolRank #1

Overall Score

9.4/10

Score breakdown

Security

9.0

Fees

9.3

9.5

Features

9.5

Support

8.7

Reputation

9.3

Pros

Largest LRT by TVL
Non-custodial (users hold their keys)
eETH natively yield-accruing
Deep DeFi and EigenLayer integrations

Cons

EigenLayer slashing risk exposure
Points-farming attracted some mercenary TVL

Founded2022TVL~$8BNotableNon-custodial keysTokeneETH

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

🥈

Renzo (ezETH)

Best for: Simple LRT + broad AVS exposureRank #2

Overall Score

8.9/10

Score breakdown

Security

8.7

Fees

9.3

Features

9.3

Support

8.3

Reputation

8.7

Pros

Simple deposit UX
Broad AVS coverage via EigenLayer
ezETH deeply integrated
Multi-chain expansion (Blast, Mode, others)

Cons

ezETH had a brief peg wobble in 2024
Restaking-inherent risks

Founded2023TVL~$3BTokenezETHNotableMulti-chain LRT

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

🥉

Kelp DAO (rsETH)

Best for: Multi-LST restaking basketRank #3

Overall Score

8.6/10

Score breakdown

Security

8.7

Fees

9.0

Features

9.0

Support

8.3

Reputation

8.5

Pros

Accepts multiple LSTs as deposit
rsETH is a diversified basket
Deep DeFi integrations
Points program rewarded early users

Cons

Multi-LST design has more complexity
Points programs concluded

Founded2023TVL~$2BTokenrsETHDepositsETH + LSTs

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

Puffer Finance (pufETH)

Best for: Anti-slashing native ETH LRT

Overall Score

8.7/10

Score breakdown

Security

9.0

Fees

9.0

8.7

Features

9.0

Support

8.3

Reputation

8.5

Pros

Anti-slashing tech (Secure-Signer)
Native ETH restaking model
Permissionless node operator set
Deep EigenLayer partnership

Cons

Newer than ether.fi/Renzo
Complexity of anti-slashing hardware/software

Founded2023TVL~$1BTokenpufETHNotableAnti-slashing tech

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

Swell (rswETH)

Best for: Restaking bolt-on for swETH holders

Overall Score

8.4/10

Score breakdown

Security

8.5

Fees

9.0

8.7

Features

8.7

Support

8.0

Reputation

8.3

Pros

Restaking variant of swETH
Deep DeFi integrations
Swell L2 launch bonuses
Points-farming attracted TVL

Cons

Smaller than top-3 LRTs
Points programs mostly wound down

Founded2023TVL~$500MTokenrswETHL2Swell L2

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

Eigenpie

Best for: LST-restaking mini-tokens

Overall Score

8.0/10

Score breakdown

Security

8.3

Fees

8.7

8.3

Features

8.7

Support

7.7

Reputation

8.0

Pros

Splits LST + restaking into mSTAKEs
Multi-LST basket approach
Magpie ecosystem tie-ins
Points program participation

Cons

Complex tokenomics
Magpie ecosystem trust required

Founded2023TVL~$200MNotableMulti-LST basket

Full Review →Visit Site ↗

Side by side

Quick Comparison

#	Name	Score	Best for	Founded	TVL
1	ether.fi (eETH)	9.4	Largest liquid restaking protocol	2022	~$8B	Review →
2	Renzo (ezETH)	8.9	Simple LRT + broad AVS exposure	2023	~$3B	Review →
3	Kelp DAO (rsETH)	8.6	Multi-LST restaking basket	2023	~$2B	Review →
4	Puffer Finance (pufETH)	8.7	Anti-slashing native ETH LRT	2023	~$1B	Review →
5	Swell (rswETH)	8.4	Restaking bolt-on for swETH holders	2023	~$500M	Review →
6	Eigenpie	8.0	LST-restaking mini-tokens	2023	~$200M	Review →

How we rate every service

Every service on this ranking is evaluated on six criteria, each scored 0–10, with the following weights: Security & Trust (25%), Fees & Costs (20%), User Experience (15%), Features & Coverage (15%), Support & Documentation (10%), and Reputation & Longevity (15%). The weighted average is the overall score.

What each criterion measures

Security & Trust — custody model, audit history, insurance or proof-of-reserves, incident record. This is the highest weight for a reason: security failures compound in ways that no yield or feature advantage can offset.
Fees & Costs — headline trading/withdrawal/deposit fees, hidden costs (spread, slippage, gas), and value at both entry-level and power-user volumes.
User Experience — interface clarity, mobile support, onboarding friction, and how well the product supports both first-time and daily users.
Features & Coverage — asset/chain/integration breadth, advanced tooling, and ecosystem depth vs the segment leader.
Support & Documentation — response times, doc quality, community channels, and how well problems get resolved when they happen.
Reputation & Longevity — years operational, team transparency, community sentiment, and how the service performed through crypto’s hardest moments (bear markets, exchange failures, exploits).

How we test

Our reviewers personally open accounts, transfer funds, execute test transactions, and contact support before publishing a score. We do not accept payment for higher ranking; commercial partnerships (where they exist) are disclosed and never influence position or score. Non-partner services regularly rank above partner services when they perform better.

Rankings are refreshed quarterly. Major changes (fee updates, security incidents, product launches) trigger immediate re-review. Every card shows a "last checked" timestamp so you can see how current the assessment is.

How we rate every service

What each criterion measures

Security & Trust — custody model, audit history, insurance or proof-of-reserves, incident record. This is the highest weight for a reason: security failures compound in ways that no yield or feature advantage can offset.
Fees & Costs — headline trading/withdrawal/deposit fees, hidden costs (spread, slippage, gas), and value at both entry-level and power-user volumes.
User Experience — interface clarity, mobile support, onboarding friction, and how well the product supports both first-time and daily users.
Features & Coverage — asset/chain/integration breadth, advanced tooling, and ecosystem depth vs the segment leader.
Support & Documentation — response times, doc quality, community channels, and how well problems get resolved when they happen.
Reputation & Longevity — years operational, team transparency, community sentiment, and how the service performed through crypto’s hardest moments (bear markets, exchange failures, exploits).

How we test

Frequently asked

Frequently Asked Questions

How did you pick the top services in Best Liquid Restaking Protocols 2026?

Every service on this list is scored on six weighted criteria — security (25%), fees (20%), UX (15%), features (15%), support (10%), and reputation (15%). The weighted average produces the overall score. Rankings reflect real hands-on testing, not marketing promises. Full methodology is documented on this page.

How often are these rankings updated?

Full re-reviews happen quarterly. In addition, any major change to a service (fee update, security incident, new product launch, regulatory action) triggers an immediate spot check within days. Each card displays a "last checked" date so you can see how current the score is.

Are your scores affected by commercial partnerships?

No. Our editorial and commercial teams are separated. Where a service has an affiliate or partner relationship it is disclosed openly, but partnerships never influence score, rank, or inclusion. Non-partner services routinely rank above partners when they perform better on our criteria.

Why is one service ranked higher than another with a similar score?

When two services score identically on the overall number, we break the tie using Security first, then Reputation & Longevity, then user-reported reliability from the last 90 days. This ensures the higher-ranked service is the one you can safely stake meaningful value on today.

Can I suggest a service to be reviewed?

Yes. Contact our editorial team with the service name, website, and a short note explaining why it deserves inclusion. Qualifying services (public team, live product, 30+ days in production) enter our review backlog and are scored using the same methodology as everything else on this page.

Explore more