Meteora vs Uniswap

Meteora3.5/5

VS

Uniswap4.1/5

Feature	MeteoraVisit	UniswapVisit
Ratings
Our score	3.5/5	4.1/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Liquidity & pricing	4.5	4.5
Fees	3.5	3.5
Security	3.5	4.0
Ease of use	3.5	4.0
Chain coverage	2.5	4.5
Specs
KYC required	Not disclosed	No
Type	AMM	AMM
Chains	Solana	Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Other
Limit orders	Yes	Yes
Cross-chain swaps	No	Yes
Audited	Yes	Yes
Open source	Not disclosed	Yes
Governance token	MET	UNI
Perpetual futures	No	No
Routes across other DEXs	No	Yes
MEV protection	Not disclosed	Yes
Mobile app	Not disclosed	Yes
Points or rewards program	Yes	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2021	2018
Headquarters	—	United States
Investors	Not disclosed	Polychain Capital, BlackRock, Andreessen Horowitz, Paradigm +8
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Solana-focused AMM with $5.955B in trailing 30-day DEX volume DLMM bins support concentrated liquidity strategies Limit orders can earn fees when swaps execute Audits cover DLMM, DAMM, DBC, vaults and staking products	Non-custodial wallet trading across 16+ EVM mainnets V3 offers four published pool fee tiers V4 supports programmable hooks and concentrated liquidity UniswapX can shift gas payment to fillers
Cons	Solana-only, with no cross-chain swap support Long-tail pools can carry thin liquidity and high slippage LPs face price-range risk and impermanent loss MET rewards depend on changing staking program rules	Pool fees vary by market and network gas is separate Thin pools can produce high slippage and poor execution Liquidity providers face out-of-range and impermanent-loss risk V4 hooks and fillers add external smart-contract dependencies
Best for	Solana token traders, Concentrated liquidity providers, Solana token launches	On-chain token traders, Concentrated liquidity providers, Developers building EVM swaps

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.

More comparisons