Compound vs HyperLend
How Compound vs HyperLend compare on our ratings, lending protocol specs, funding, pros and cons.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 4.0/5 | 3.6/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security & track record | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Rates | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Market depth | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| Ease of use | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Decentralization | 4.0 | 3.0 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | No | Not disclosed |
| Lending model | Isolated markets | Pooled |
| Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base | Hyperliquid |
| Main collateral assets | ETH, WBTC, USDC, USDT | HYPE, kHYPE |
| Flash loans | No | Not disclosed |
| Permissionless markets | No | Not disclosed |
| Audited | Yes | Yes |
| Bug bounty | Yes | Not disclosed |
| Governance token | COMP | HPL |
| Isolated markets | Yes | Not disclosed |
| Real-world-asset collateral | No | Not disclosed |
| Own stablecoin | No | Not disclosed |
| Rates | Variable | Variable |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 2017 | — |
| Headquarters | — | — |
| Investors | Dragonfly, Polychain Capital, a16z crypto | Not disclosed |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | USDC and WETH borrowers, Suppliers avoiding rehypothecation risk, Users seeking yield on supported EVM networks | Hyperliquid EVM asset holders, HYPE liquid staking loopers, Institutions seeking fixed-rate credit |
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.

