Autofarm excels at multi-chain breadth and native token utility because of its early mover advantage and deep integrations. For example, it supports over 15 chains including BNB Chain, Polygon, and Avalanche, and its AUTO token is central to governance and fee-sharing mechanisms. This extensive reach provides a single dashboard for managing diverse, cross-chain yield strategies, which is crucial for protocols operating on multiple Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks.
LABS
Comparisons
Autofarm vs. Beefy Finance: Multi-Chain Autocompounders
A technical comparison of two leading cross-chain yield aggregators, analyzing network support, fee structures, tokenomics, and security to inform infrastructure decisions for DeFi protocols and high-volume users.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle of Automated Yield Optimizers
A data-driven comparison of Autofarm and Beefy Finance, the leading multi-chain vault aggregators, to inform your protocol's yield strategy.
Beefy Finance takes a different approach by prioritizing security, meticulous audits, and vault optimization. This results in a more curated, security-first platform with a slightly narrower chain selection (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain). Beefy's strength is its rigorous process; each vault strategy undergoes multiple internal and external audits (e.g., by Peckshield, CertiK) before launch, minimizing smart contract risk for users and integrating protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing cross-chain deployment speed and leveraging a robust token economy for your users, choose Autofarm. If you prioritize security, audit transparency, and optimized yields on a core set of high-value chains where capital preservation is paramount, choose Beefy Finance. Your decision hinges on whether breadth or depth of security defines your yield strategy's success.
tldr-summary
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven comparison of two leading multi-chain autocompounding vaults. Choose based on your protocol's specific needs for chain coverage, yield strategy, and fee structure.
01
Choose Autofarm for Breadth & Aggregation
Multi-chain dominance: Deployed on 15+ chains including BSC, Polygon, and Cronos. Aggregator model: Sources yields from 50+ external protocols (PancakeSwap, Aave, Curve). This matters for protocols needing maximum asset coverage and yield sourcing flexibility across diverse ecosystems.
15+
Chains
50+
Integrated Protocols
02
Choose Beefy Finance for Depth & Optimization
Strategy sophistication: Known for complex, optimized vaults (e.g., leveraged yield farming, delta-neutral strategies). Gas efficiency: Lower harvest gas costs on many chains due to optimized contracts. This matters for maximizing net APY for large TVL positions and sophisticated treasury management.
$1.5B+
Peak TVL
03
Choose Autofarm for Predictable Fees
Clear fee structure: Standard 0.5% performance fee on harvested yield. No deposit/withdrawal fees. This matters for calculating precise ROI and for high-frequency treasury operations where fee predictability is critical.
04
Choose Beefy for Community & Innovation
Strong governance: BIFI token stakers govern treasury and fee parameters. Rapid iteration: Consistently first to market with new chain deployments (e.g., Base, Linea) and strategy types. This matters for protocols that value decentralized roadmap influence and early access to emerging chain opportunities.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Autofarm vs. Beefy Finance: Multi-Chain Autocompounders
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for two leading DeFi yield optimizers.
| Metric | Autofarm | Beefy Finance |
|---|---|---|
Supported Chains | 8 | 20+ |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $150M+ | $1.5B+ |
Native Token (Governance) | AUTO | BIFI |
Auto-Compounding Vaults | 200+ | 1,000+ |
Average Performance Fee | 0.5% | 0.1% - 0.5% |
Cross-Chain Asset Bridge | ||
Protocol-Operated Keepers | ||
Audit Score (DeFi Safety) | 78% | 91% |
AUTOFARM VS. BEEFY FINANCE
Cost Analysis: Fee Structures and Economic Impact
Direct comparison of key performance and economic metrics for multi-chain autocompounding vaults.
| Metric | Autofarm | Beefy Finance |
|---|---|---|
Performance Fee (Standard Vault) | 4.5% on profits | 4.5% on profits |
Deposit/Withdrawal Fee | 0% | 0% |
Supported Blockchains | BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Fantom, Cronos | 30+ chains including BNB Chain, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $100M+ | $1B+ |
Native Token Utility | AUTO (Governance, Fee Discounts) | BIFI (Revenue Share, Governance) |
Harvest Gas Subsidy | ||
Average APY (Top 10 Vaults) | 5-15% | 8-25% |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
User Scenarios: When to Choose Which Platform
Beefy Finance for Yield Optimization
Verdict: The specialist for maximum APY and deep liquidity. Strengths: Superior autocompounding algorithms, higher average APY on core vaults, and a massive, battle-tested TVL (often >$1B). Its focus on fewer, high-quality strategies on major chains (Ethereum, BNB Chain, Polygon, Arbitrum) means deeper liquidity and less slippage for large deposits. The BIFI token staking model offers a direct revenue share. Weaknesses: Less chain diversity than Autofarm, meaning fewer exotic opportunities.
Autofarm for Yield Optimization
Verdict: The aggregator for breadth and discovery across emerging chains. Strengths: Unmatched chain coverage (20+ networks including Cronos, Kava, Harmony). Acts as a discovery platform for new, high-yield farms on less saturated chains. The AUTOv2 token governance is more decentralized. Better for users who want to chase the highest yields on newer ecosystems. Weaknesses: Lower aggregate TVL can mean higher slippage and less proven security on some integrated protocols.
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Autofarm vs. Beefy Finance: Multi-Chain Autocompounders
A data-driven comparison of two leading vault aggregators. Choose based on your protocol's need for maximum yield, security, or chain coverage.
01
Autofarm: Multi-Chain Breadth
Specific advantage: Supports 12+ chains including BNB Chain, Polygon, and Avalanche. This matters for protocols seeking to deploy liquidity across multiple ecosystems with a single integration point. Lower integration overhead for multi-chain strategies.
02
Autofarm: Lower Fee Structure
Specific advantage: 0.1-0.5% performance fees vs. industry average of 1-2%. This matters for high-volume protocols where basis points directly impact user APY. More value accrues to the liquidity provider.
03
Beefy Finance: Superior Security Posture
Specific advantage: Multiple audits (Peckshield, CertiK) and a $1M+ bug bounty program. This matters for protocols managing institutional capital or high TVL (>$100M) where security is non-negotiable. Lower smart contract risk.
04
Beefy Finance: Advanced Strategy Depth
Specific advantage: 500+ optimized vaults with complex strategies (leveraged yield, delta-neutral). This matters for protocols needing sophisticated yield optimization beyond simple staking, such as on Arbitrum or Optimism.
05
Autofarm: Centralization Risk
Specific disadvantage: More centralized admin keys and upgradeability controls. This matters for protocols prioritizing decentralization and censorship resistance. A single point of failure exists for strategy management.
06
Beefy Finance: Higher Complexity Cost
Specific disadvantage: Steeper learning curve and higher gas costs for complex strategies. This matters for protocols targeting retail users on Ethereum Mainnet, where transaction costs can erode yield gains.
pros-cons-b
Autofarm vs. Beefy Finance
Beefy Finance: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for the two leading multi-chain autocompounders at a glance.
01
Beefy's Strength: Protocol Depth & Security
Deep multi-chain integration: Deployed on 18+ chains including Arbitrum, Base, and zkSync. This matters for protocols seeking a single, battle-tested vault manager across their entire ecosystem. Proven security record: No major protocol exploits since inception, with audits from Paladin, CertiK, and Immunefi bug bounties.
02
Beefy's Strength: Yield Optimization Engine
Advanced auto-compounding strategies: Features Boosted Pools and Leveraged Vaults (on select chains) for sophisticated yield generation. This matters for maximizing returns on blue-chip assets like ETH, BTC, and stablecoins beyond simple staking.
03
Autofarm's Strength: Cross-Chain User Experience
Unified dashboard: Single interface to manage positions across 10+ supported chains (BSC, Polygon, Avalanche). This matters for users and integrators who prioritize a consistent, simplified UI for tracking diverse farm yields without chain-hopping.
04
Autofarm's Strength: Gas Efficiency & Speed
Optimized for cost-sensitive chains: Historically strong focus on BSC and Polygon with strategies fine-tuned for lower gas fees. This matters for users with smaller capital allocations where transaction costs significantly impact net APY.
05
Beefy's Trade-off: Complexity for New Users
Overwhelming choice: Hundreds of vaults with varying risk profiles (e.g., Delta-Neutral, Leveraged) can confuse newcomers. This is a drawback for protocols targeting a purely passive, set-and-forget user base.
06
Autofarm's Trade-off: Narrower Strategic Depth
Fewer innovative vault types: Less focus on advanced products like leveraged yield farming compared to Beefy. This is a drawback for sophisticated users or protocols looking to offer cutting-edge yield products to their community.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A final assessment of Autofarm and Beefy Finance, framing the core architectural trade-offs to guide infrastructure decisions.
Beefy Finance excels at security-first, community-driven protocol development because of its decentralized multi-sig governance and rigorous, public vault audits. For example, its sustained Total Value Locked (TVL) of over $1 billion across 17+ chains, including Arbitrum and Base, demonstrates robust user trust. Its strategy of focusing on fewer, high-conviction vaults per chain often results in superior, battle-tested yield optimization code.
Autofarm takes a different approach by prioritizing breadth and speed of chain deployment. This results in a trade-off between expansive reach and potential depth of integration. While it supports an impressive array of networks like Cronos and Kava, its historical reliance on a more centralized upgrade mechanism (the MasterApe admin key) has been a point of contention for protocol architects valuing maximal decentralization.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing yield opportunities across the widest possible array of emerging Layer 1 and Layer 2 ecosystems, and you operate with an assumption of benevolent central control, Autofarm's first-mover advantage on new chains is compelling. If you prioritize security, verifiable decentralization, and deep, optimized strategies on established DeFi hubs, Beefy's community-curated vaults and proven track record make it the default choice. For a CTO managing a substantial treasury, the reduced smart contract risk offered by Beefy's audit-heavy approach often justifies a slight sacrifice in chain coverage.
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