CryptoReview
Submit listing

Compound vs Fluid

How Compound vs Fluid compare on our ratings, lending protocol specs, funding, pros and cons.

Compound4.0/5
VS
Fluid3.9/5
Feature
CompoundVisit
FluidVisit
Ratings
Our score4.0/53.9/5
User ratingNo reviews yetNo reviews yet
Security & track record4.53.5
Rates4.04.5
Market depth3.54.0
Ease of use4.04.0
Decentralization4.03.5
Specs
KYC required No No
Lending modelIsolated marketsPooled
ChainsEthereum, Arbitrum, BaseEthereum, Arbitrum, Base, Other
Main collateral assetsETH, WBTC, USDC, USDTETH, USDC, GHO, BTC, USDGO
Flash loans NoNot disclosed
Permissionless markets NoNot disclosed
Audited Yes Yes
Bug bounty Yes Yes
Governance tokenCOMPFLUID
Isolated markets YesNot disclosed
Real-world-asset collateral No Yes
Own stablecoin NoNot disclosed
RatesVariableVariable
Company
Founded20172018
Headquarters——
InvestorsDragonfly, Polychain Capital, a16z cryptoStandard Crypto, Alliance, Andre Cronje, LongHash Ventures +4
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros
  • Audited by OpenZeppelin and ChainSecurity with a $1M bug bounty
  • Processed $480B in all-time deposits and borrows since 2018
  • No KYC required to supply or borrow on standard markets
  • Active on Ethereum, Base, and Arbitrum
  • Collateral earns both lending yields and DEX trading fees simultaneously
  • Over $860M in TVL and $660M in active loans in October 2026
  • No KYC verification required to borrow or lend
  • Supported by $24.5M in backing from Pantera Capital and Coinbase Ventures
Cons
  • Lacks an umbrella safety module to cover protocol-wide bad debt
  • Borrow rates vary with base-asset pool utilization
  • Does not support permissionless market creation by users
  • Borrowing is restricted to only one designated base asset per pool
  • Compromised off-chain operational keys led to a $215,000 reward pool theft in May 2026
  • Incurred $70M in bad debt from the Resolv protocol exploit in March 2026
  • Cross-protocol unified liquidity increases smart contract composability risk
  • Borrow rates fluctuate dynamically based on pool utilization
Best forUSDC and WETH borrowers, Suppliers avoiding rehypothecation risk, Users seeking yield on supported EVM networksOnchain collateralized borrowing, Dual-yield liquidity providers, Non-KYC multichain lending

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.