1inch vs Uniswap: Aggregator vs AMM
1inch is a non-custodial DEX aggregator that combines liquidity from multiple venues, while Uniswap is a non-custodial automated market maker built around liquidity pools. The main difference is routing: 1inch searches across 18+ networks and venues, including Solana, while Uniswap supports 16+ EVM mainnets through its API and protocol deployments.
1inch charges no protocol fee through its dApp, although network gas, liquidity-provider charges and price impact still apply. Uniswap uses published v3 pool fee tiers of 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.3% and 1%, with gas charged separately. Their feature sets also diverge. 1inch offers cross-chain swaps and Fusion intent-based execution. Uniswap provides concentrated liquidity, v4 hooks, Universal Router and UniswapX, where external fillers compete to execute signed orders. Both keep funds in the connected wallet and require users to accept smart-contract and execution risk.
Quick verdict
Liquidity sourcing is the deciding difference. 1inch acts as a routing layer across multiple venues and supports cross-chain transfers across 18+ networks, including Solana. Uniswap centers on its own v2, v3 and v4 pool systems across 16+ EVM mainnets. That structure gives Uniswap a deeper set of liquidity-provider controls, including four v3 fee tiers and programmable v4 hooks, while 1inch adds venue aggregation, Fusion execution and cross-chain transfers. Both are non-custodial.
Choose 1inch if aggregated routing or Solana support matters, and if paying zero 1inch dApp protocol fees is preferable to trading through a single AMM. Network gas, liquidity-provider charges and access restrictions in some US states still apply. Its record also includes smart-contract incidents in October 2024 and March 2025.
Choose Uniswap if concentrated liquidity, v4 hooks, open-source contracts and published audit reports are more important than aggregator routing. Uniswap pool fees range from 0.01% to 1%, and thin pools can create slippage. UniswapX can shift gas payment to external fillers, while users still face contract and filler dependencies.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 3.7/5 | 4.1/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Liquidity & pricing | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Fees | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Security | 2.5 | 4.0 |
| Ease of use | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Chain coverage | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | Not disclosed | No |
| Type | Aggregator | AMM |
| Chains | Ethereum, BNB Chain | Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Other |
| Swap fee | 0 protocol fee | Not disclosed |
| Limit orders | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Cross-chain swaps | Yes | Yes |
| Audited | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Open source | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Governance token | 1INCH | UNI |
| Perpetual futures | No | No |
| Routes across other DEXs | Yes | Yes |
| MEV protection | Yes | Yes |
| Mobile app | Yes | Yes |
| Points or rewards program | Yes | Not disclosed |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 2019 | 2018 |
| Headquarters | — | United States |
| Investors | Amber Group, Nima Capital, Pantera Capital, ParaFi Capital +23 | Polychain Capital, BlackRock, Andreessen Horowitz, Paradigm +8 |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Multi-chain on-chain traders, Aggregated token swaps, Intent-based swap users | On-chain token traders, Concentrated liquidity providers, Developers building EVM swaps |
Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.
FAQ
Is 1inch cheaper than Uniswap?
1inch charges no protocol fee through its dApp, while Uniswap pools use v3 fee tiers of 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.3% or 1%. Both can involve network gas, and 1inch swaps can also include liquidity-provider charges and price impact.
Which supports more networks, 1inch or Uniswap?
1inch supports swaps across 18+ networks, including Solana, while Uniswap's API supports 16+ EVM mainnets. Their network coverage overlaps on Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base, Arbitrum and other chains.
Are 1inch and Uniswap non-custodial?
Yes, both are non-custodial. The connected wallet retains control of funds and signs transactions instead of depositing assets with a central custodian.
Which has more advanced liquidity features?
Uniswap has more direct liquidity-management features through v3 concentrated positions and v4 hooks. 1inch focuses on aggregation, Fusion intent-based execution, MEV protection and cross-chain swaps.
Which has the stronger security record?
Uniswap has open-source contracts with published audit reports, while 1inch has an audit report and recorded smart-contract incidents in October 2024 and March 2025. Both retain smart-contract and execution risk.