Instadapp excels at deep, gas-optimized integrations with specific protocols like Aave, Compound, and MakerDAO. Its leverage modules are not generic interfaces but purpose-built smart contracts that abstract complex multi-step actions into single, secure transactions. For example, its flagship MakerDAO automation handles collateral swaps, debt refinancing, and vault management with up to 30% gas savings compared to manual execution, securing billions in Total Value Locked (TVL) across its suite.
LABS
Comparisons
Instadapp Leverage Modules vs. Furucombo
A technical comparison of two leading DeFi smart account automation platforms, analyzing Instadapp's pre-built leverage actions against Furucombo's visual drag-and-drop composability for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle of DeFi Automation Philosophies
A technical breakdown of two distinct approaches to DeFi automation: Instadapp's specialized, protocol-native modules versus Furucombo's general-purpose, visual workflow builder.
Furucombo takes a different approach by providing a visual, drag-and-drop interface (a "cube" system) that lets users and developers compose arbitrary cross-protocol workflows. This results in superior flexibility—you can connect protocols like Uniswap, Curve, and 1inch in novel ways—but often at the cost of gas efficiency and the deep, security-audited integration that native modules provide. Its strength is enabling rapid prototyping of complex DeFi strategies without writing Solidity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, gas efficiency, and deep functionality for core lending/borrowing protocols, choose Instadapp's specialized modules. If you prioritize rapid experimentation, cross-protocol composability, and a low-code environment for unique strategies, Furucombo's visual builder is the superior tool. The choice fundamentally hinges on depth versus breadth in DeFi automation.
tldr-summary
Instadapp vs. Furucombo
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural and strategic trade-offs between two leading DeFi automation platforms.
01
Instadapp: Smart Account Sovereignty
Architecture: Users deploy their own smart contract wallet (DSL). This provides non-custodial control and unlimited composability for custom strategies. It's ideal for sophisticated users and protocols building on top of Instadapp's infrastructure, as it eliminates intermediary approvals.
02
Instadapp: Deep Protocol Integration
Focus: Deep, optimized modules for core protocols like Aave, Compound, and Liquity. Offers gas-optimized leverage loops and debt refinancing. This matters for users seeking maximum capital efficiency and safety within established blue-chip DeFi lending markets.
03
Furucombo: Visual Drag-and-Drop Builder
UX: A no-code interface where users connect "cubes" (protocol actions) in a flowchart. Reduces barrier to entry for non-devs. This matters for power users and DAO treasuries wanting to create and share complex multi-step transactions (e.g., yield harvesting, arbitrage) without writing a line of code.
04
Furucombo: Broad Protocol Agnosticism
Strategy: Integrates with a wider, more diverse set of protocols (100+) across multiple chains. Acts as a universal transaction router. This is better for strategies requiring cross-protocol arbitrage or accessing niche yield opportunities not supported by deeper integration specialists.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Instadapp vs. Furucombo
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for DeFi automation and leverage.
| Metric / Feature | Instadapp | Furucombo |
|---|---|---|
Core Automation Model | Smart Wallet (DSL) & DeFi Smart Accounts | Visual Composer (Cube System) |
Supported Chains | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Fantom, Avalanche |
Native Leverage Modules | ||
Gas Optimization (Batching) | Gas abstraction & multi-call batching | Transaction batching in a single Cube |
Primary Interface | Web App & SDK | Web-based Visual Canvas |
Governance Token | INST | COMBO |
Total Value Locked (TVL) Peak | $20B+ | $1.5B+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Instadapp Leverage Modules vs. Furucombo
Key strengths and trade-offs for DeFi automation and leverage strategies at a glance.
01
Instadapp Pro: Deep Protocol Integration
Direct smart account access: Leverage Modules are built on top of Instadapp's Smart Accounts (DSAs), enabling direct, gas-efficient interactions with protocols like Aave, Compound, and Maker. This matters for complex, multi-step leverage loops where minimizing contract calls and maximizing capital efficiency is critical.
10+
Integrated Protocols
02
Instadapp Pro: Unified Management Interface
Centralized position dashboard: Manage all leveraged positions (e.g., ETH Boost, Stable Leverage) from a single interface with real-time health factors and risk metrics. This matters for institutional users and large positions who need consolidated monitoring and one-click adjustments across Aave V3, Compound V3, and more.
03
Furucombo Pro: Visual Drag-and-Drop Builder
No-code automation: Assemble complex DeFi transactions (swaps, leverage, yield) using a visual cube-based interface without writing a line of Solidity. This matters for prototyping strategies quickly or for teams without deep smart contract expertise wanting to automate workflows across Uniswap, Balancer, and Yearn.
04
Furucombo Pro: Broad Cross-Chain Composer
Multi-chain strategy orchestration: Originally an Arbitrum and Polygon native, Furucombo allows composing actions across multiple chains and L2s within a single transaction flow. This matters for advanced strategies that leverage arbitrage or specific yield opportunities isolated to certain chains like Optimism or Base.
05
Instadapp Con: Steeper Learning Curve
Conceptual overhead: Requires understanding of Smart Accounts (DSAs) and their authority models. While powerful, this abstraction layer adds complexity versus connecting a regular wallet. This is a trade-off for newer DeFi users or those seeking simple, one-off transactions.
06
Furucombo Con: Potential Gas Inefficiency
Proxy-based execution: User transactions are routed through Furucombo's proxy contracts, which can add extra gas overhead compared to direct contract calls. This matters for high-frequency strategies or users optimizing for absolute minimum transaction costs on Ethereum Mainnet.
pros-cons-b
LEVERAGE MODULE COMPARISON
Furucombo vs. Instadapp: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for DeFi automation and leveraged strategies at a glance.
01
Furucombo: Visual Automation
Drag-and-drop workflow builder: Enables complex, multi-protocol transactions (e.g., deposit ETH to Aave, borrow USDC, swap for more ETH on Uniswap V3) without writing code. This matters for non-technical users and rapid strategy prototyping.
02
Furucombo: Multi-Protocol Composability
Broad protocol integration: Supports 40+ DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound, Lido, Uniswap, etc.) on Ethereum, Polygon, and Fantom. This matters for creating cross-protocol yield strategies and arbitrage opportunities in a single transaction.
03
Instadapp: Capital Efficiency & Control
Optimized leverage modules: Direct smart contract interactions for actions like flash loans and debt refinancing via Instadapp's DSL (DeFi Smart Layer). This matters for advanced users seeking maximum capital efficiency and lower fees on complex positions.
04
Instadapp: Developer-Centric & Account Abstraction
Smart Account standard: Users get a persistent smart contract wallet (Instadapp Smart Account) enabling batched transactions, gas abstraction, and enhanced security. This matters for developers building on top of it and power users managing sophisticated portfolios.
05
Furucombo: Potential Gas Inefficiency
Proxy-based architecture: Each "combo" routes through Furucombo's hub contract, which can add extra gas overhead compared to direct contract calls. This matters for high-frequency users where transaction cost optimization is critical.
06
Instadapp: Steeper Learning Curve
Interface complexity: While powerful, advanced features like the Debt Refinance Module or leveraging with flash loans require a deeper understanding of DeFi mechanics. This matters for beginners who prioritize simplicity over granular control.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which Platform
Instadapp for Power Users
Verdict: The definitive choice for sophisticated, high-value leverage strategies. Strengths: Direct, gas-optimized smart contract interactions via DSL (DeFi Smart Layer). Access to advanced, protocol-native leverage modules like Compound Leverage and Aave Leverage for maximum capital efficiency and control. Superior for complex, multi-step positions (e.g., leveraged staking, recursive borrowing) where execution precision and security are paramount. Higher TVL indicates institutional and whale preference for battle-tested logic.
Furucombo for Power Users
Verdict: Ideal for rapid prototyping and visual automation of cross-protocol workflows. Strengths: The visual cube builder allows quick assembly of complex transactions (e.g., flash loan -> swap -> provide liquidity -> stake) without writing a line of code. Faster iteration for testing composite strategies across protocols like Uniswap, Balancer, and Yearn. Better for users who prioritize flexibility and exploration over the absolute lowest gas cost per transaction.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide CTOs and architects in choosing between Instadapp's specialized leverage modules and Furucombo's generalized automation canvas.
Instadapp excels at providing deep, gas-optimized, and secure leverage operations for specific DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound. Its modules are battle-tested, with over $1.5B in Total Value Locked (TVL) across its smart accounts, demonstrating significant institutional trust. The architecture is purpose-built for complex actions such as leveraged yield farming and debt refinancing, offering superior capital efficiency and lower execution risk through direct, audited smart contract interactions.
Furucombo takes a different approach by offering a visual, drag-and-drop canvas for creating arbitrary DeFi workflows. This strategy results in unparalleled flexibility, allowing users to chain actions across dozens of protocols (Uniswap, Balancer, Curve) in a single transaction. The trade-off is a layer of abstraction; while it simplifies complex multi-step processes, it can introduce marginally higher gas costs and relies on its proxy system, which has faced security audits and updates following past exploits.
The key trade-off is specialization versus generalization. If your priority is maximum security, capital efficiency, and deep leverage operations within core money markets, choose Instadapp. Its focused modules are the industrial-grade tool for that specific job. If you prioritize rapid prototyping, cross-protocol automation, and user-friendly workflow creation for a broader range of DeFi strategies, choose Furucombo. Its canvas is ideal for teams needing to quickly build and iterate on complex, multi-protocol interactions.
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