Uniswap v3 excels at capital efficiency through its revolutionary concept of concentrated liquidity. By allowing liquidity providers (LPs) to set custom price ranges for their capital, it achieves deeper liquidity and lower slippage for traders within those bounds. This is evidenced by its dominant Total Value Locked (TVL), which has consistently held above $3 billion, and its position as the primary price discovery venue for major assets like ETH, USDC, and WBTC. The protocol's focus on a lean, audited core has made it the de facto standard for on-chain spot trading.
LABS
Comparisons
Uniswap v3 vs SushiSwap: Core AMM Architecture
A technical comparison of the two dominant AMM protocols, analyzing the trade-offs between Uniswap v3's capital efficiency and SushiSwap's multi-chain expansion and yield features for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A data-driven comparison of Uniswap v3 and SushiSwap's core AMM architectures, focusing on capital efficiency, governance, and ecosystem strategy.
SushiSwap takes a different approach by embedding its AMM within a broader DeFi ecosystem and community-owned framework. While its V3 AMM (a fork of Uniswap v3) offers similar concentrated liquidity features, Sushi's value proposition is its SushiBar staking, BentoBox lending vaults, and on-chain governance via the SUSHI token. This results in a trade-off: it may not match Uniswap's raw liquidity depth for blue-chip pairs, but it offers LPs additional yield streams and users a more integrated suite of DeFi primitives under a single brand.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum capital efficiency, deepest liquidity, and serving as a benchmark price oracle, choose Uniswap v3. If you prioritize community governance, earning multiple yield streams from a single deposit, or building within a cohesive multi-product ecosystem, choose SushiSwap.
tldr-summary
Uniswap v3 vs SushiSwap
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
Core architectural and governance trade-offs for protocol architects and CTOs.
01
Uniswap v3: Concentrated Capital Efficiency
Concentrated Liquidity: LPs can allocate capital within custom price ranges, achieving up to 4000x higher capital efficiency than v2. This is critical for professional market makers and stablecoin pairs where price volatility is low.
4000x
Max Capital Efficiency
02
Uniswap v3: Fee Tier Flexibility
Multiple Fee Tiers (0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30%, 1.00%) allow LPs to be compensated for varying levels of risk. High-volatility assets (e.g., memecoins) use 1% tiers, while stable pairs use 0.01%. This creates optimized markets for all asset types.
03
SushiSwap: Multi-Chain Liquidity Network
Native deployment on 30+ chains including Arbitrum, Polygon, and Base. This provides superior liquidity fragmentation for protocols needing broad, chain-agnostic user access without relying on bridges.
30+
Chains Deployed
04
SushiSwap: Community-Owned Treasury & Revenue
Protocol-owned liquidity and a community-controlled treasury (SushiDAO) funded by 0.05% of swap fees. This enables sustainable funding for grants, development, and incentives, unlike Uniswap's purely LP-focused fee model.
05
Uniswap v3: Oracle Superiority
Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) oracles are gas-optimized and highly secure, making them the de-facto standard for DeFi lending protocols like Aave and Compound. Essential for any protocol needing reliable on-chain price feeds.
06
SushiSwap: Integrated Product Suite
BentoBox lending vault, Kashi lending markets, and MISO launchpad create a cohesive DeFi ecosystem. This reduces integration complexity for projects seeking more than just an AMM, fostering user stickiness.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Uniswap v3 vs SushiSwap: Core AMM Architecture
Direct comparison of concentrated liquidity, governance, and fee mechanics for DeFi architects.
| Metric | Uniswap v3 | SushiSwap |
|---|---|---|
Concentrated Liquidity | ||
Custom Fee Tiers | 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.3%, 1% | 0.05% (Standard), 0.3% (Stable) |
Protocol Fee Switch | ||
Native Governance Token | UNI | SUSHI |
Multi-chain Deployment | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, Celo | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Fantom, 30+ chains |
Avg. Fee to LPs (ETH/USDC) | ~0.24% | ~0.17% |
TVL (Ethereum Mainnet) | $3.5B+ | $350M+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Uniswap v3 vs SushiSwap: Core AMM Architecture
Key strengths and trade-offs of the leading AMMs at a glance. Choose based on capital efficiency, fee flexibility, and protocol governance.
01
Uniswap v3: Concentrated Liquidity
Capital Efficiency: LPs can concentrate capital within custom price ranges, providing up to 4000x higher capital efficiency than v2 for stablecoin pairs. This matters for professional market makers and protocols seeking maximum yield on known price corridors.
02
Uniswap v3: Flexible Fee Tiers
Multi-Tier Fee Structure: Offers 0.01%, 0.05%, 0.30%, and 1.00% fee tiers. This allows LPs to be compensated for varying levels of risk (e.g., 0.05% for ETH/USDC, 1% for exotic altcoins). This matters for optimizing returns against impermanent loss.
03
SushiSwap: Protocol-Owned Revenue
xSUSHI Revenue Share: Fee revenue (0.05% on all swaps) is distributed to xSUSHI stakers. This creates a sustainable yield model for token holders, with over $30M in annualized fees. This matters for investors seeking protocol cashflow exposure.
04
SushiSwap: Multi-Chain Deployment
Broad Chain Support: Native deployments on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Avalanche, and 20+ other chains via SushiXSwap. This matters for projects requiring deep liquidity and a unified UI/UX across multiple ecosystems.
05
Uniswap v3: LP Complexity & Risk
Active Management Burden: Concentrated positions require constant monitoring and rebalancing, incurring gas costs. LPs outside their set price range earn zero fees. This matters for passive investors who prefer the 'set-and-forget' model of v2.
06
SushiSwap: Lower Capital Efficiency
V2-Style Liquidity Pools: Uses the simpler, full-range liquidity model, leading to significantly lower capital efficiency for stable and correlated assets. This matters for LPs with large capital allocations seeking maximal fee generation.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Uniswap v3 vs SushiSwap: Core AMM Architecture
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating AMM infrastructure.
01
Uniswap v3: Capital Efficiency
Concentrated Liquidity: LPs can allocate capital within custom price ranges, achieving up to 4000x higher capital efficiency for stablecoin pairs. This is critical for professional market makers and protocols maximizing fee yield on large TVL.
$3.5B
TVL (Ethereum)
02
Uniswap v3: Protocol Revenue & Security
Sustainable Fee Model: The protocol charges a 0.05% fee on all swaps, generating consistent revenue. Combined with its battle-tested, minimalist codebase (audited by Trail of Bits), it's the gold standard for security-conscious enterprises building on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon.
$2.5B+
All-Time Fees
03
Uniswap v3: Complexity & Accessibility
Steep Learning Curve: Concentrated liquidity requires active management (e.g., using Gelato for automation). This creates a barrier for casual LPs and fragments liquidity, which can lead to worse slippage for traders outside major pools.
04
SushiSwap: Multi-Chain Breadth
Native Deployment Strategy: Sushi is natively deployed on 20+ chains including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, and Base. This offers a unified UI/UX and tokenomics system, simplifying operations for projects requiring a broad, multi-chain presence from day one.
20+
Chains
05
SushiSwap: Ecosystem & Token Utility
Integrated Product Suite: Beyond the AMM, the SushiBar (xSUSHI), BentoBox lending, and MISO launchpad create a cohesive DeFi ecosystem. The SUSHI token grants governance and fee share (0.05% of swaps), appealing to community-driven protocols.
06
SushiSwap: Centralization & Execution Risk
DAO Governance Challenges: Past treasury management and leadership disputes highlight execution risk. The codebase is more complex due to its product breadth, potentially increasing audit surface. Choose this if your team can actively monitor governance proposals.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Decision Framework
Uniswap v3 for Liquidity Managers
Verdict: The superior choice for sophisticated, active capital efficiency. Strengths: Concentrated liquidity allows LPs to set custom price ranges (e.g., USDC/ETH between $3,000-$3,500), dramatically increasing capital efficiency and fee earnings per dollar deposited. Supports multiple fee tiers (0.05%, 0.30%, 1.00%) to match asset volatility. Oracle provides highly granular, time-weighted average prices (TWAPs) directly from the pool, essential for advanced DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound. Trade-offs: Requires active management and monitoring of positions. Impermanent loss risk is concentrated, not diluted.
SushiSwap for Liquidity Managers
Verdict: Ideal for passive, yield-seeking capital with additional token incentives. Strengths: Utilizes the classic v2 AMM constant product formula (x*y=k), offering simplicity and passive, full-range exposure. SUSHI token emissions provide additional yield on top of trading fees, often making initial APRs attractive. The BentoBox vault can optimize capital by using deposited assets across multiple Sushi protocols (e.g., Kashi lending). Trade-offs: Lower capital efficiency than Uniswap v3 for stable or predictable pairs. Relies on inflationary token rewards for initial bootstrapping.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Uniswap v3 and SushiSwap is a strategic decision between hyper-optimized capital efficiency and a diversified, community-driven ecosystem.
Uniswap v3 excels at capital efficiency and liquidity precision because of its concentrated liquidity model. This allows LPs to define custom price ranges, which is critical for stablecoin pairs or tightly-correlated assets. For example, a DAI/USDC pool on v3 can achieve the same depth as v2 with significantly less capital, evidenced by its ~$3.5B TVL (as of Q4 2024) concentrated in high-utility pools. Its architecture is the de facto standard for professional market making and complex integrations like Arrakis Finance and Gamma Strategies.
SushiSwap takes a different approach by prioritizing ecosystem diversification and fee-sharing. This results in a trade-off of less granular capital control for broader utility. The protocol captures value through its multi-product suite—Trident AMM framework, BentoBox lending vault, and MISO launchpad—and redistributes fees to xSUSHI stakers. While its core AMM TVL (~$500M) is smaller, its strategy aims for resilience through product integration and a community treasury governed by SushiDAO.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing yield for volatile or stable assets and you have sophisticated LP strategies, choose Uniswap v3. Its concentrated liquidity is unmatched for targeted deployments. If you prioritize ecosystem alignment, governance participation, and diversified revenue streams from a single protocol, choose SushiSwap. Its multi-chain presence and product integration offer a broader, if less specialized, DeFi foundation.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall