Lending · COMP · $1.3B TVL. Screen grades as of November 12, 2026: Solvency BBB, Legitimacy A, Growth B. Blue-chip codebase; development pace and mindshare fading vs Aave/Morpho.
| Input / Grade | July 27, 2026 | November 12, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| TVL | $1.2B | $1.3B |
| 12-month TVL change | -25% | -42% |
| Worst 90-day drawdown | 30% | 24% |
| Drawdown scored | 30% (90-day only, v1.0) | 42% (worse of 90-day and 12-month, v1.1) |
| Solvency (credit grade) | A · 73.3 | BBB · 67 |
| Growth | B · 31.3 | B · 31.3 |
TVL figures: DefiLlama, parent-level listing. The July 27, 2026 TVL was an analyst estimate and may have used a narrower definition, so part of the TVL difference can be definitional. Only these three inputs were refreshed in the re-screen; sustainability, unlocks, risk, audits, team, delivery, governance, category share and momentum were left as the July 27, 2026 estimates.
Solvency screens at BBB (67 / 100), previously A in the July 27, 2026 screen. The worst 90-day TVL drawdown is 24% and 12-month TVL change is -42%. TVL stability is scored on the 12-month decline of 42%, because it is worse than the latest 90 days. Sustainability ratio (1.5x), unlock pressure (1%) and risk quality (8 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
Legitimacy screens at A (72.5 / 100). No Legitimacy input was refreshed in the November 12, 2026 re-screen, so the grade is unchanged from July 27, 2026.
Growth screens at B (31.3 / 100), unchanged from the July 27, 2026 screen. TVL is $1.3B, -42% over twelve months (it was -25% at the previous screen). Category share (5%) and momentum (3 / 10) are carried over from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade is Solvency BBB. Legitimacy is A and the Growth outlook is B; the weakest axis is Growth. These grades use TVL data as of November 12, 2026 and qualitative inputs from July 27, 2026.
The credit grade answers one question: can Compound survive stress and pay its users back. Legitimacy (A) and the Growth outlook (B) are published beside it and are never averaged into it. Weakest axis: Growth.
| Protocol | Solvency | Legitimacy | Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound (this page) | BBB | A | B |
| Aave | A | AA | BB |
| Morpho | A | AA | A |
| JustLend | A | BB | BBB |
| Spark | A | A | BB |
| Kamino | BBB | BBB | B |
| Venus | A | BB | CCC |
| Suilend | BB | BB | CCC |
| Euler | BB | A | B |
| Benqi | BB | BBB | CCC |
| NAVI | B | BB | CCC |
| Moonwell | BB | BBB | CCC |
Compound is the protocol that invented pooled algorithmic lending and, for a time, defined DeFi itself. The screen scores a blue-chip in graceful decline: the codebase remains among the most trusted in the industry while the franchise steadily cedes ground to Aave's scale and Morpho's architecture.
Solvency screens at A. The Comet (v3) architecture is conservative and battle-tested, drawdown is moderate, unlocks negligible, and the 8/10 risk score reflects one of the longest clean operating records in lending. The ~1.5x sustainability ratio is adequate but no longer compounding.
Legitimacy screens at A on audit depth and pedigree, with the notable deduction in delivery (6/10): development pace has visibly slowed, governance-funded initiatives have churned, and the roadmap has thinned where competitors' have thickened.
Growth screens at B, the binding dimension: 5% category share, 25% TVL decline, and 3/10 momentum — the lowest among major lenders. The protocol retains integrations and trust but is no longer where new collateral goes first.
Composite B. Credit quality without commercial momentum. The full-rating question is stark: can stewardship of a trusted codebase alone sustain a franchise, or does lending leadership require the shipping cadence Compound has lost?
