Crypto Newbie / Simulators / DEX Aggregator
DEX Aggregator Routing Simulator
1inch, ParaSwap, 0x, CoW Protocol — every modern DEX aggregator splits your swap across multiple pools to minimise slippage. The savings on a $10k+ swap can be 0.5-3% vs going to a single Uniswap pool directly. This simulator runs the same optimal-routing algorithm (grid search with greedy chunk assignment) and shows you exactly when splitting helps + by how much.
Available pools
| Pool | X reserve (ETH) | Y reserve (USDC) | Fee % | Spot price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniswap V3 0.05% | 3.50k | |||
| Uniswap V2 0.3% | 3.50k | |||
| Sushiswap 0.3% | 3.50k | |||
| Balancer 0.1% | 3.50k |
Swap
Best single-pool route (baseline)
Best pool: Uniswap V3 0.05%
USDC out: 145.77k
Effective price: 2.92k
Optimal split route
Total USDC out: 166.36k
Effective price: 3.33k
Splits across pools
| Pool | ETH in | USDC out | % of swap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uniswap V3 0.05% | 13.00 | 43.23k | 26.0% |
| Uniswap V2 0.3% | 12.00 | 39.96k | 24.0% |
| Sushiswap 0.3% | 12.00 | 39.96k | 24.0% |
| Balancer 0.1% | 13.00 | 43.21k | 26.0% |
Savings vs single pool
Extra USDC: +20.59k
Improvement %: +14.125%
Why splitting saves money — slippage is non-linear
A pool's slippage cost grows roughly with (your_size / pool_depth)². Doubling your trade size in a single pool quadruples slippage. But splitting your trade across 4 equally-deep pools — each handles 1/4 the size — gives you 1/16 the slippage cost per pool, summed across 4 pools = 4/16 = 1/4 the total slippage. For a $1M swap, this can save $5k-30k depending on pool depth distribution.
How the optimal-routing algorithm works
1inch's Pathfinder discretises your trade into N small chunks (typically 50-100). For each chunk, it asks 'which pool gives the best marginal output right now?' and assigns that chunk to the winning pool. After the chunk is assigned, that pool's reserves update (it now has slightly more of your input + less of the output), which lowers its marginal rate for the next chunk. Repeat until all chunks are placed. This is provably near-optimal for convex bonding curves like Uniswap V2.
The fee-vs-slippage trade-off
Pools with HIGHER fees often have LESS volume and therefore DEEPER liquidity per swap. A 0.3% pool with 4× the liquidity of a 0.05% pool can be cheaper for large swaps even with the 6× higher fee. The aggregator's job is to balance these — for small trades, low-fee pools win; for large trades, deeper pools (regardless of fee) win. The simulator above lets you change fees + depth to see the crossover.
Why not always use an aggregator?
Three reasons aggregators sometimes lose: (1) Gas — splitting across 4 pools requires 4 transactions worth of gas vs 1. For small trades (<$200), gas can outweigh slippage savings. (2) MEV — multi-pool routes have more opportunities for sandwich attacks. Aggregators mitigate via private RPCs (CoW) or partial fills. (3) Slippage tolerance — aggregators sometimes execute at slightly different routes than quoted; setting too-tight slippage causes failed transactions. For trades > $500, aggregator nearly always wins.
Frequently asked questions
+Which aggregator is best — 1inch, ParaSwap, or CoW?
Depends on trade size and chain. 1inch: most chains supported, fastest UI, basic MEV protection. ParaSwap: similar to 1inch, sometimes slightly better rates. CoW Protocol: best for large trades (batched auction = no MEV), but only on Ethereum + Gnosis Chain. 0x: protocol used by Matcha + others, often best raw rate. For typical retail: 1inch is the safe default. For > $50k swaps: try CoW first to avoid sandwich attacks.
+Why don't aggregators always find the same route?
Different algorithms + different pool data freshness. ParaSwap might know about a new pool 1inch hasn't indexed yet. Different aggregators include different DEXs (some skip low-volume pools, some include only audited ones). For best execution, get quotes from 2-3 aggregators and compare before submitting. Most aggregators show 'savings vs best alternative' in their UI.
+Do aggregators charge fees on top of the pools' fees?
Some do. 1inch: 0% protocol fee + you pay pool fees. ParaSwap: 0.15% on some trades for accumulated treasury. 0x: 0.15% on Matcha-routed trades. CoW: no protocol fee + sometimes negative slippage (better than quoted) when their batch auction surplus exceeds expected. Always check the 'fee' line before signing.
+Why does the simulator show 'no savings' sometimes?
When a single pool dominates so much that splitting loses to it. The 'dominant pool' preset shows this: 90% of liquidity is in one pool, so any other pool can only contribute marginal output at much worse rates. The aggregator correctly identifies this and routes 100% through the dominant pool. Realistic scenarios usually have more balanced liquidity across pools.
+How accurate is the simulator's 'savings %' for real trades?
Directional accuracy: very good. Absolute number: ±50% of real. The simulator uses Uniswap V2 math; real DEXs include V3 (concentrated liquidity, different curve), stable pools (Curve, different invariant), and orderbook DEXs (Hyperliquid). Real aggregator routing is more sophisticated. The simulator captures the QUALITATIVE dynamic — when splitting helps + roughly by how much. For exact savings on a real trade, get quotes from 1inch/CoW.