Compound vs Liquidium

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

Feature	Compound Visit	Liquidium Visit
Ratings
Our score	4.0/5	3.4/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security & track record	4.5	3.0
Rates	4.0	3.5
Market depth	3.5	3.0
Ease of use	4.0	4.0
Decentralization	4.0	3.5
Specs
KYC required	No	No
Lending model	Isolated markets	Pooled
Chains	Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base	Other
Main collateral assets	ETH, WBTC, USDC, USDT	BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, ICP
Flash loans	No	Not disclosed
Permissionless markets	No	Not disclosed
Audited	Yes	Not disclosed
Bug bounty	Yes	Not disclosed
Governance token	COMP	LIQ
Isolated markets	Yes	No
Real-world-asset collateral	No	No
Own stablecoin	No	No
Rates	Variable	Variable
Company
Founded	2017	2023
Headquarters	—	—
Investors	Dragonfly, Polychain Capital, a16z crypto	AGE Fund, Asymmetric Ventures, CMS Holdings, DeGods +11
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	Direct native Bitcoin and Ethereum deposits without third-party centralized bridges Simple Loans require no account sign-in or wallet connection to access liquidity Max LTV up to 65% for BTC and ETH collateral with a modest 5% liquidation penalty Supported by $4.0M in equity funding from established crypto investment firms
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	Upfront 0.5% activation fee added to debt on every new loan Borrowing rates surge sharply when pool utilization passes the 92% kink Supplied collateral cannot be directly sold or swapped inside the app to settle debts Reliance on ICP Chain Key canisters adds underlying infrastructure counterparty risk
Best for	USDC and WETH borrowers, Suppliers avoiding rehypothecation risk, Users seeking yield on supported EVM networks	Long-term Bitcoin holders seeking stablecoin liquidity, Borrowers avoiding manual wrapped token bridges, DeFi users seeking non-custodial cross-chain loans

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.