Fusion by IPOR vs vfat.io
Yield aggregators · Data collected October 19, 2026 · Both 100% measured · No affiliate links
Short answer: vfat.io scores 8.26 out of 10 and ranks second of 15 yield aggregators on CoinPulse's open-data scorecard, 0.01 behind CIAN Yield Layer. Fusion by IPOR scores 6.94 and ranks eighth. They score the same on value locked, track record and chain reach. The whole 1.32-point gap is security audits: DefiLlama lists three published audit links for vfat.io and one for Fusion by IPOR. Their raw numbers also differ: Fusion by IPOR holds more than twice the value locked, and vfat.io is deployed on three times as many chains, but each of those gaps falls inside a single scoring band. The data also records a January 2026 hack entry for Fusion by IPOR, which the score does not count.
| | Fusion by IPOR | vfat.io | |---|---|---| | Score | 6.94 | 8.26 | | Rank (of 15) | #8 | #2 | | Score measured | 100% | 100% |
vfat.io scores higher: 8.26/10 against 6.94/10. It leads on 1 of 4 criteria, Fusion by IPOR on 0.
Criterion by criterion
Same category, same weights, heaviest criterion first. Open a row for each side’s reasoning and evidence.
Security audits33% of the scorevfat.io leadsFusion by IPOR6vfat.io10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Scale of value trusted31% of the scoreLevelFusion by IPOR6vfat.io6Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Track record25% of the scoreLevelFusion by IPOR8vfat.io8Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Multi-chain reach11% of the scoreLevelFusion by IPOR10vfat.io10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Criterion by criterion
| Criterion (weight) | Fusion by IPOR | vfat.io | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security audits (33%) | 1 link → 6 | 3 links → 10 | vfat.io |
| Value locked (31%) | $83.6M → 6 | $36.4M → 6 | Level (same band) |
| Track record (25%) | 2.1 yr since DefiLlama listing → 8 | 2.4 yr since DefiLlama listing → 8 | Level |
| Chain reach (11%) | 12 chains → 10 | 38 chains → 10 | Level (both at top band) |
Measured October 19, 2026, 14:39 UTC, from DefiLlama. Audits are the published audit links DefiLlama lists, not a count of every audit a protocol has had.
What explains the 1.32-point gap
Only the heaviest criterion differs. Three published audit links score 10 and one link scores 6. At 33% weight, that four-point difference is 1.32 points, the full gap. A single link can point to an audits page covering several reports, so this measures how much audit material is listed on DefiLlama, not how many audits each team has commissioned. Read the linked reports yourself; audits reduce risk, they do not remove it.
The other three criteria cannot separate them. Value locked is scored on a log scale, and both $83.6M and $36.4M (the category median) fall in the 6 band. Chain reach tops out at 10, and 12 chains already reach it, so vfat.io's 38 earn nothing extra. Both ages are counted from DefiLlama listing dates, which the methodology treats as minimums, and both score 8.
If raw numbers matter to you, Fusion by IPOR has more capital deposited and vfat.io has wider deployment. The scorecard treats both differences as too small to change a band.
What the scores don't measure
- Hack history (not weighted in this category). DefiLlama's hack database, checked October 19, 2026, records one incident for Fusion by IPOR: January 6, 2026, $336,000, through an arbitrary external call, with no returned amount listed. It has no entry for vfat.io, which is not proof it was never exploited.
- How the products work. Fusion vaults are run by vault managers. vfat.io is a front end and automation layer for farming positions on other protocols. Custody, strategy control and fee models differ, and none of it is scored. Read each product's documentation.
- Yields, fees, support and availability are not scored.
Which situation fits which
- You weigh published audit material most: vfat.io lists three audit links on DefiLlama against one, the measured difference behind its higher score.
- You prefer a larger pool of deposited capital: Fusion by IPOR ($83.6M against $36.4M), with the January 2026 incident weighed separately.
- You farm on less common chains: vfat.io is deployed on 38 chains.
- You weigh recorded exploit history: vfat.io has no entry in the database, and Fusion by IPOR has one recent entry.
None of this is a recommendation to deposit.
The numbers side by side
| Measured | Fusion by IPOR | vfat.io |
|---|---|---|
| Value locked | $83.6M | $36.4M |
| Published audits | 1 | 3 |
| Track record | 2.1 yr | 2.4 yr |
| Chains | 12 | 38 |
Where each one falls short
Fusion by IPOR
Scale of value trusted: $83.6M in value locked (DefiLlama). Capital is the market voting with its money — scored on a log scale, so the jump from $10M to $100M counts for more than $10B to $20B.
vfat.io
Scale of value trusted: $36.4M in value locked (DefiLlama). Capital is the market voting with its money — scored on a log scale, so the jump from $10M to $100M counts for more than $10B to $20B.
Which to choose
Which is better, Fusion by IPOR or vfat.io?+
On CoinPulse's measured criteria, vfat.io scores higher, 8.26 against 6.94. The difference is entirely the audit criterion; on value locked, track record and chain reach they score the same.
Why doesn't Fusion by IPOR's higher TVL count?+
Value locked is scored in log-scale bands, and both amounts fall in the same band.
Is "vfat" here the file system?+
No. vfat.io is a DeFi yield-farming application. It is unrelated to the VFAT file system used on disks and memory cards. Related: full yield aggregators ranking · Vesper vs Fusion by IPOR · methodology *Figures from the CoinPulse collection of October 19, 2026.*