Renzo vs Kelp

• Reach (+0.52 to Renzo). 13 chains score 10 and 1 chain scores 6. Four bands at 13% weight is the largest single difference between these two.
• Value locked (+0.30 to Kelp). $981.4M sits just under the $1B mark and scores 8. Renzo's $111.4M scores 7. On a log scale, a ninefold difference is worth one band.
• Audits and age are identical. Both have 1 published audit link on DefiLlama (scored 6) and 2.8 years since listing. The audit criterion counts links, often to an audits page, not audits commissioned.

So Renzo ranks higher because it is more widely deployed, not because the measured evidence on its contracts or its size is stronger.

DefiLlama's hack database lists a $293M exploit against Kelp dated April 18, 2026. The Block reported the same day that Kelp's LayerZero-based bridge for rsETH, the component that moves the token between networks, was apparently exploited for about 116,500 rsETH (roughly $292M at the time), and that Kelp paused rsETH contracts on mainnet and several layer-2 networks (The Block).

Why doesn't the score reflect it? Liquid restaking is weighted on audits, value locked, age and reach. Security record carries 0% here. Kelp's rating page states this directly and asks readers to read the two together. In categories where security record is scored, an incident of this size would score poorly: under $200M scores 2, and $200M or more scores 1, based on what users lost after any funds were returned.

For Renzo, the same database (1,307 incidents checked October 19, 2026) has no matching entry. That means no recorded hack, not proof that none occurred.

A related point: Kelp's incident involved a cross-chain bridge. Renzo's 13-chain deployment earns it points as breadth, but more chains generally means more bridge infrastructure to trust. No criterion here measures that exposure for either protocol.

• Token peg. Whether ezETH or rsETH trades at the value of its underlying ETH is not scored.
• Dependency on EigenCloud. Renzo is built on EigenLayer, now EigenCloud (Nansen). That layer is rated separately; see EigenCloud vs Renzo.
• Rewards, slashing, withdrawal terms, fees, app experience. Not scored.
• Latency (recorded, unscored). Renzo's restaking app responded in 259 ms and Kelp's restaking page in 162 ms (category median 106 ms), from a single location.

• If a recorded nine-figure exploit is a dealbreaker, that rules Kelp out, whatever its score. Check Kelp's own post-incident disclosures and the current state of its contracts before deciding anything.
• If you want a restaking token usable on many networks, Renzo's 13 chains are the measured difference. Factor in the bridge exposure that comes with them.
• If size is your main trust signal, Kelp's $981.4M was the larger figure on October 19, 2026. That value was measured after the April incident.