Triple-Threat Analysis: Measuring Mythril, Slither and Oyente Against Real-World Smart Contract Vulnerabilities

Year : 2026 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 01 | Page : 78 85
By

Ranjit Haldar,

Himadri Sekhar Mondal,

Asim Kumar Panda,

Amartya Roy,

Shuvojit Das,

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Information technology, B.P. Poddar Institute of Management and Technology, West Bengal, India
  2. Assistant Professor, Department of Information technology, B.P. Poddar Institute of Management and Technology, West Bengal, India
  3. Assistant Professor, Department of Information technology, B.P. Poddar Institute of Management and Technology, West Bengal, India
  4. Student, Department of Information technology, B.P. Poddar Institute of Management and Technology, West Bengal, India
  5. Student, Department of AI and ML, BITS Pilani, Rajasthan, India

Abstract

Smart contracts have become fundamental building blocks of blockchain ecosystems, yet their immutable nature makes security vulnerabilities particularly devastating. This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of three prominent static analysis tools – Mythril, Slither, and Oyente – for detecting vulnerabilities in Ethereum smart contracts. Through systematic experimentation with real-world contract categories (voting systems, land registries, and crowdfunding platforms), we quantify the effectiveness of each tool across eight critical vulnerability types, including reentrancy, integer overflows, and transaction ordering dependence. Our results reveal significant variations in tool capabilities: Slither demonstrates superior performance for syntactic vulnerabilities (95% detection rate for integer overflows) with faster analysis times (3× quicker than Mythril), while Mythril excels at detecting complex logical flaws (92% accuracy for reentrancy). Oyente shows consistently lower performance, particularly for gas-related vulnerabilities (45% detection rate). We identify key trade-offs between analysis depth and computational resources, with Mythril requiring 2.5× more memory than Slither for thorough symbolic execution. The study provides practical insights for developers, recommending Slither for development phase scanning and Mythril for final audits. We also expose critical gaps in current tools, including poor cross-contract vulnerability detection (42% missed rate) and limited gas optimization analysis. These findings inform us of our proposed roadmap for future research directions, including hybrid analysis frameworks and machine learning-enhanced detection methods. Our work contributes to smarter tool selection strategies and highlights opportunities for advancing smart contract security analysis.

Keywords: Blockchain, Ethereum, formal verification, integer overflow, Mythril, Oyente, reentrancy attacks, security vulnerabilities, Slither, smart contracts, static analysis

[This article belongs to Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research & Advances ]

How to cite this article: Ranjit Haldar, Himadri Sekhar Mondal, Asim Kumar Panda, Amartya Roy, Shuvojit Das. Triple-Threat Analysis: Measuring Mythril, Slither and Oyente Against Real-World Smart Contract Vulnerabilities. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research & Advances. 2026; 13(01):78-85.
How to cite this URL: Ranjit Haldar, Himadri Sekhar Mondal, Asim Kumar Panda, Amartya Roy, Shuvojit Das. Triple-Threat Analysis: Measuring Mythril, Slither and Oyente Against Real-World Smart Contract Vulnerabilities. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research & Advances. 2026; 13(01):78-85. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/joaira/article=2026/view=261553

References

  1. Atzei N, Bartoletti M, Cimoli T. A survey of attacks on Ethereum smart contracts (SoK). In: Proc Int Conf Princ Secur Trust; 2017 Mar 28; Berlin, Germany. Springer; 2017. p. 164–186.
  2. Feist J, Grieco G, Groce A. Slither: A static analysis framework for smart contracts. In: Proc IEEE/ACM Int Workshop Emerg Trends Softw Eng Blockchain (WETSEB); 2019 May 27. IEEE; 2019. p. 8–15.
  3. Kalra S, Goel S, Dhawan M, Sharma S. ZEUS: Analyzing safety of smart contracts. In: Proc NDSS Symp; 2018 Feb 18. p. 1–12.
  4. Luu L, Chu DH, Olickel H, Saxena P, Hobor A. Making smart contracts smarter. In: Proc ACM SIGSAC Conf Comput Commun Secur (CCS); 2016 Oct 24. ACM; 2016. p. 254–269.
  5. Tsankov P, Dan A, Drachsler-Cohen D, Gervais A, Buenzli F, Vechev M. Securify: Practical security analysis of smart contracts. In: Proc ACM SIGSAC Conf Comput Commun Secur (CCS); 2018 Oct 15. ACM; 2018. p. 67–82.
  6. Grishchenko I, Maffei M, Schneidewind C. Foundations and tools for the static analysis of Ethereum smart contracts. In: Proc Int Conf Comput Aided Verif (CAV); 2018 Jul 14. Springer; 2018. p. 51–78.
  7. Brent L, Jurisevic A, Kong M, Liu E, Gauthier F, Gramoli V, Holz R, Scholz B. Vandal: A scalable security analysis framework for smart contracts. arXiv. 2018 Sep 11; arXiv:1809.03981.
  8. Kiani R, Sheng VS. Ethereum smart contract vulnerability detection and machine learning-driven solutions: A systematic literature review. Electronics. 2024;13(12):2295.
  9. Wang X, He J, Xie Z, Zhao G, Cheung SC. ContractGuard: Defend Ethereum smart contracts with embedded intrusion detection. IEEE Trans Serv Comput. 2020;13(2):314–328.
  10. Tikhomirov S, Voskresenskaya E, Ivanitskiy I, Takhaviev R, Marchenko E, Alexandrov Y. SmartCheck: Static analysis of Ethereum smart contracts. In: Proc Int Workshop Emerg Trends Softw Eng Blockchain (WETSEB); 2018 May 27. p. 9–16.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 13
Issue 01
Received 14/10/2025
Accepted 30/12/2025
Published 09/02/2026
Publication Time 118 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics

Support