Maple vs SSV Network
Maple scores 8.33/10 and SSV Network 7.16/10 in the DeFi protocols ranking, on data collected October 19, 2026. They rank #4 and #12 of 15, and both have 100% of the score measured. SSV Network has almost five times Maple's value locked. Maple's published audit link on DefiLlama, longer track record and second chain more than make up for it. The two do different jobs, so this comparison is mainly useful for seeing how the scoring weighs size against age and reach.
Maple scores higher: 8.33/10 against 7.16/10. It leads on 3 of 4 criteria, SSV Network on 1.
Criterion by criterion
Same category, same weights, heaviest criterion first. Open a row for each side’s reasoning and evidence.
Scale of value trusted37% of the scoreSSV Network leadsMaple9SSV Network10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Security audits26% of the scoreMaple leadsMaple6SSV Network2Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Track record24% of the scoreMaple leadsMaple10SSV Network9Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Multi-chain reach13% of the scoreMaple leadsMaple8SSV Network6Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
What decides the 1.17-point gap
- SSV Network's advantage: $12.71B locked against $2.71B puts it one band higher on value locked, worth 0.37 points at 37% weight.
- Maple's advantages: one published audit link on DefiLlama against none (+4 bands, worth 1.04 points), two extra years of documented operation (+1 band, worth 0.24 points) and a second chain (+2 bands, worth 0.26 points).
Net: 1.54 − 0.37 = 1.17 for Maple. Value locked is scored on a log scale, so SSV Network's extra $10B moves it only one band. Audits do most of the rest.
Both launch dates are known only by year, so each age counts from July 1 of the launch year. The audit criterion counts published audit links on DefiLlama. For SSV Network there are none, which is not proof that its contracts were never audited; it means no report can be checked from that source. One link would lift SSV Network's audit score to 6 and its total to 8.20.
Not the same kind of protocol
DefiLlama files Maple under "Lending" and SSV Network under "Staking Pool". Both qualify for this blue-chip DeFi bucket, but they aren't alternatives for the same task.
- If you're comparing lending options, Maple is also scored in the lending ranking (8.15, #5). Peers there include Compound V3 vs Maple.
- If you're comparing ways to stake ETH, look at the staking and liquid staking rankings, and read Liquid staking, explained.
What isn't measured
- Fees, yields and operator or pool economics. Not scored.
- Product-specific risk. Credit and borrower risk for a lending protocol, and validator-performance and slashing risk for staking infrastructure. Neither is scored.
- Exploit history. 0% weight in this category.
- Audit quality and scope. Only the count of published audit links on DefiLlama is scored.
- Eligibility and availability in your country. Not scored.
Which fits which reader
- You weight audit evidence you can open: Maple has an audit link on DefiLlama; SSV Network has none there, so look for its reports in its own documentation.
- You weight documented longevity: Maple, 5.3 against 3.3 years.
- You weight capital trusted: SSV Network, $12.71B against $2.71B.
- You need more than Ethereum: Maple is listed on two chains (Ethereum and Solana on DefiLlama). SSV Network is listed on one (Ethereum).
- You actually need a lender or a staking setup: use the category rankings above. This pair isn't a like-for-like choice.
The numbers side by side
| Measured | Maple | SSV Network |
|---|---|---|
| Value locked | $2.71B | $12.71B |
| Published audits | 1 | 0 |
| Track record | 5.3 yr | 3.3 yr |
| Chains | 2 | 1 |
Where each one falls short
Maple
Security audits: 1 published audit with links (DefiLlama) — read the findings yourself. Audits reduce risk, they do not remove it.
SSV Network
Security audits: No published audits on DefiLlama. Not proof of insecurity, but an unaudited contract holding funds is a red flag.
Not for: Anyone putting size into it: it holds funds in smart contracts with no published audit. Fine to experiment with, not to trust with a position you cannot afford to lose.
Which to choose
Why does Maple outrank a protocol with five times its value locked?+
Value locked is scored on a log scale, so above roughly $10B the extra capital adds only one band (0.37 points). Maple's audit link is worth 1.04, and its two extra years and second chain another 0.50.
Is SSV Network rated anywhere else on the site?+
In this snapshot, its rating page shows a score only in the DeFi protocols category.
Are there company profiles for Maple or SSV Network?+
Not yet. Background on both teams sits outside the ratings section and hasn't been published.