Overview Leaderboard Methodology
Industry Report

Decentralized Exchanges

Non-custodial trading platforms that facilitate peer-to-peer token swaps and liquidity pools on blockchain networks via smart contracts.

Brands tracked: 36
Brands analyzed: 36
Last updated: 2026-04-23
Model: OpenAI GPT-5
Prompts: 281
Total responses: 1,435
Top Brand Overall?
Uniswap
91/100

Highest overall AI Visibility Score in this industry.

LBA Leader?
MetaMask
85

Highest score on the LBA metric in this industry.

Authority Leader?
Uniswap
92

Highest score on the Authority metric in this industry.

TOM Leader?
Uniswap
100

Highest score on the TOM metric in this industry.

Uniswap is the default answer in AI responses for Decentralized Exchanges

When users ask ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini about Decentralized Exchanges, Uniswap is the brand that surfaces first - unprompted, consistently, and usually at the top of any list the model generates. PancakeSwap is a close second, but the gap between them is meaningful. If you're competing in this space and you're not in the top handful, you're effectively invisible to AI-driven discovery.

Brand Leaderboard All 36 Decentralized Exchanges brands ranked

Ranked by overall AI Visibility Score (smoothed geometric mean of LBA, Authority, and TOM with an LBA-based floor on Authority and TOM, see methodology). Click any brand for the full report.

# Brand LBA Authority TOM Overall
1
Uniswap
uniswap.org
 83
92
100
91
2
PancakeSwap
pancakeswap.finance
 77
55
91
73
3
Curve
curve.fi
 78
33
86
61
4
1inch
1inch.io
 84
40
59
59
5
Jupiter
hellojupiter.com
 70
11
33
31
6
dYdX
dydx.trade
 70
7
43
30
7
Orca
orca.so
 73
7
36
29
8
Raydium
raydium.io
 63
6
41
28
9
Trader Joe
traderjoexyz.com
 77
8
29
28
10
MetaMask
metamask.io
 85
9
15
24
11
Aerodrome
aerodrome.finance
 60
6
25
23
12
GMX
gmx.io
 63
6
20
22
13
Osmosis
osmosis.zone
 78
8
8
19
14
Arbitrum
arbitrum.io
 74
7
7
18
15
Balancer
balancer.fi
 70
7
7
17
16
BNB Chain
bnbchain.org
 68
7
7
17
17
CoW Swap
cow.fi
 71
7
7
17
18
KyberSwap
kyberswap.com
 64
6
6
16
19
Matcha
matcha.xyz
 63
6
6
16
20
Sushi
sushi.com
 64
6
6
16
21
SpookySwap
spookyswap.finance
 59
6
6
15
22
THORChain
thorchain.org
 62
6
6
15
23
Velodrome
velodrome.finance
 58
6
6
15
24
Bancor
bancor.network
 57
6
6
14
25
Bisq
bisq.network
 58
6
6
14
26
QuickSwap
quickswap.exchange
 57
6
6
14
27
WOOFi
woo.org
 54
5
5
14
28
Vertex
vertexinc.com
 53
5
5
13
29
Maverick
mav.xyz
 45
5
5
12
30
SyncSwap
syncswap.xyz
 47
5
5
12
31
Camelot
camelot.exchange
 44
4
4
11
32
Meteora
meteora.ag
 42
4
4
11
33
SunSwap
sunswap.com
 36
4
4
9
34
Kujira FIN
kujira.network
 23
2
2
7
35
Baby Doge Swap
babydogeswap.com
 20
2
2
6
36
Base
base.org
 20
2
2
6

How is this calculated? Methodology

Every brand in this leaderboard is scored against the same set of 281 shared Decentralized Exchanges prompts. The same prompts, same model, same iterations. So differences in scores reflect actual differences in AI visibility, not differences in measurement.

Overall AI Visibility Score
Smoothed geometric mean of LBA, Authority and TOM. Authority and TOM are floored at LBA × 0.1 before the geometric mean (the same floor used in the per-metric cards above, so brand cards and the composite tell the same story). Formula: composite = ((LBA + 5)(Authority + 5)(TOM + 5))^(1/3) - 5. The floor keeps brands the model clearly recognises but doesn't yet recommend from collapsing to zero, while a single genuinely weak metric still pulls the composite down. Full methodology.
Shared industry prompts
For Authority and TOM, all brands in the industry are scored against the same 281 category prompts (e.g. "best SEO tools for agencies"). This makes brand-to-brand comparisons valid - everyone faces identical inputs. LBA prompts are per-brand because they ask brand-specific questions.
Latent Brand Association (LBA)
5 brand probes + 1 control prompt, each run 5 times in recall mode (no web search). LBA = quality × meta × stability × share × recognition × 100. Read the full LBA methodology →
LLM Authority
50 organic category prompts (discovery, comparison, problem and transactional intents), each run once in recall mode and once in retrieval mode. Score = frequency × log-decayed prominence × intent weight, then 50/50 averaged across the two modes. Read the full Authority methodology →
Top of Mind (TOM)
15 high-volume discovery prompts (sourced from Keywords Everywhere search-volume data), each run 5 times in pure recall mode (no web). Score = frequency × (0.5 + 0.5 × log-prominence), volume-weighted. Read the full TOM methodology →