Sherlock vs Code4rena: Audit Competition Platforms

Audit-as-Insurance Model: Sherlock provides a $5M+ smart contract coverage pool for accepted findings, acting as a financial backstop. This matters for protocols prioritizing risk mitigation and capital protection post-audit, especially in DeFi with high TVL.

Pre-competition Expert Review: Sherlock's internal Security Lead triages and validates all submissions before payout, reducing noise for the sponsoring protocol. This matters for engineering teams with limited bandwidth who need a vetted, actionable report.

Massive Crowd & Fixed Timeline: Code4rena mobilizes hundreds of auditors in a focused, time-boxed (3-7 day) competition. This matters for protocols needing maximum eyeballs and parallelized review quickly, leveraging the "wisdom of the crowd".

Top-of-Funnel for Elite Talent: It's the premier arena for independent auditors to build reputation and earn significant bounties (e.g., $500k+ prize pools). This matters for protocols wanting to attract the absolute best researchers and gain community visibility.

Fixed-price, insured audits: Projects pay a set fee for a security review backed by up to $10M in coverage for vulnerabilities. This matters for protocols with defined budgets who need financial certainty and post-audit protection against exploits in the reviewed code.

Dedicated security engineers pre-filter and validate all submissions before they reach the client. This matters for engineering teams with limited bandwidth, as it reduces noise and ensures you only review high-signal, valid findings.

Massive prize pools attract a broad range of security talent. Competitions like Aave V3 ($1M pool) and Uniswap V4 ($1.5M pool) demonstrate scale. This matters for high-value, complex protocols seeking maximum eyeballs and diverse attack vectors.

Pure competitive model where all valid findings are rewarded from a shared prize pool based on severity. This matters for projects prioritizing exhaustive review and willing to manage a higher volume of submissions to uncover edge cases.

Budget-conscious projects with production-ready code. Ideal if you need:

• Predictable costs and financial risk transfer.
• A managed process with reduced triage overhead.
• Coverage for specific code commits (e.g., a new vault or upgrade).

High-stakes protocols seeking maximum scrutiny. Ideal if you:

• Have a large treasury to fund a major prize pool.
• Want to stress-test a novel or complex system (e.g., new DEX, lending primitive).
• Value the transparency and frenzy of a fully open competition.

Massive, competitive auditor pool: Attracts 500+ independent security researchers per major contest. This creates a high-stakes, winner-takes-most environment that incentivizes deep, exhaustive review, often uncovering complex, multi-layered vulnerabilities like those in Uniswap V4 and OpenSea.

Fixed-price, insured audits: You pay a set fee for a Sherlock-led review with a $5M+ smart contract coverage guarantee. This model provides budget certainty and risk transfer, making it ideal for protocols like Aave or GMX that require financial predictability and post-audit protection.

Cost scales with prize pool and findings. A high-stakes contest can exceed $500K in prizes and require 2-3 weeks of intensive protocol team engagement for triage and QA. This demands significant internal resources and budget flexibility.

Limited to vetted, Sherlock-managed auditors. While ensuring quality, this can reduce the diversity of attack vectors explored compared to a fully open crowd. The model prioritizes consistent, insured outcomes over the potential for novel, crowd-sourced breakthroughs.