Compound vs Fluid (Instadapp) Compound leads by 1 point.
Compound scores 1 point above Fluid (Instadapp), led by rate authorship and shortfall record. Compound ranks #6 and Fluid (Instadapp) #7 of 8 published lending & borrowing. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Compound74
vs
Fluid (Instadapp)73
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #7 of 8
Compound scores 1 point above Fluid (Instadapp), led by rate authorship and shortfall record.
Compound #6 of 874
Fluid (Instadapp) #7 of 873
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termCompound leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Fluid (Instadapp) on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermCompoundFluid (Instadapp)WeightPoints
Blast radius7/108/105.8−1.5for Fluid (Instadapp)−0.8 of 32
Rate authorship9/108/105.8+1.5for Compound+0.8 of 32
Shortfall record8/107/104.8+1.2for Compound+0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+1.2
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+1.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7473+1.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
CompoundScore 74COMP-governed onchain money market whose Compound III (Comet) design gives each market exactly one borrowable base asset and a set of capped, non-lent collateral assets, priced by a single named Chainlink feed per asset with no published deviation bound, and liquidated whole by an absorb call paid out of protocol reserves.Strength: Rate authorship — 9/10Watch-out: Compound now has one of the cleanest RATE disclosures in this pool and one of the thinnest ORACLE disclosures, and a buyer who conflates the two will misprice it. Four specific traps. First, the page that tells you what liquidates you — https://docs.compound.finance/liquidation/ — never names an oracle at all ("This function uses the price returned by the protocol’s price feed"); Chainlink is named two clicks away on the helper-functions page, and a machine check of all nine Compound doc pages returns zero occurrences of deviation, heartbeat, staleness, median, fallback, killswitch or price bound. The one bounded feed Compound ever ran — the multisig-settable min/max and constant-price override added to rsETH after the 18 April 2026 Kelp bridge exploit — was REVERTED in May 2026 via Proposal 586, so as of today no Compound market carries a numeric price bound. Second, the docs registry is a snapshot, not live state: stamped 2026-02-28, it still advertises rsETH on the Ethereum USDC Comet at 85% borrow CF and a 1,500-token supply cap when the on-chain cap has since been set to 0, and it still lists ten mainnet networks when six of them — Polygon, Unichain, Linea, Mantle, Ronin and Scroll — are approved for deprecation with supply caps zeroed, collateral factors halved and supply rates being set to 0%. Read the Comet and the forum, not the docs table. Third, the one-week governance timelock that makes Compound's rate authorship trustworthy does NOT cover the emergency path: the Community Multi-Sig pause guardian can freeze withdrawals instantly (it did so across six networks in April 2026), and a 0% collateral factor mechanically locks collateral until debt is fully repaid — both disclosed on the forum, neither in the docs. Fourth, the named backstop is real but shrinking and undocumented at the tail: reserves on the Ethereum WETH Comet fell from 921.22 to 908.46 WETH between 10 May and 5 August 2026 because the comet "retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization", no Compound page says what happens once reserves are exhausted, and Compound discloses its losses well on comp.xyz and not at all on either page titled Security.Fluid (Instadapp)Score 73Shared-liquidity money market where collateral and debt can sit inside a Fluid DEX position; publishes per-vault oracle contract, LTV, liquidation threshold, penalty and absorbed bad debt live via its own API, and disclosed a ~$21M Resolv-driven shortfall (incident 22 Mar 2026) on its governance forum in amounts its own marketing recap then restates as $9.7M and attributes to the wrong payer.Strength: Rate authorship — 8/10Watch-out: Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 4 rows read the same for both.
FactCompoundFluid (Instadapp)
PricingSnapshotCompound III charges no subscription, listing or curator fee; the protocol's take is the spread between separate supply and borrow curves that governance sets. The Interest Rates page (https://docs.compound.finance/interest-rates/, fetched 28 September 2026): "Users with a positive balance of the base asset earn interest, denominated in the base asset, based on a supply rate model; users with a negative balance pay interest based on a borrow rate model. These are separate interest rate models, and set by governance." Compound publishes the size of that spread only per proposal on its forum. For the Ethereum WETH Comet, Gauntlet's 5 August 2026 post (https://www.comp.xyz/t/ethereum-weth-comet-borrow-rate-irm-updates/7999, fetched 28 September 2026) states "Compound v3 has no reserve factor parameter" and prints the implied reserve factor as "0.00%" at the kink and "10.00%" at full utilisation, adding "The comet currently retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization." Comets being wound down are repriced by the same route: a 2 September 2026 forum proposal sets the Ethereum wstETH Comet's supply rate to zero ahead of deprecation. Live per-market APYs are on-chain only, so no APY is quoted.Fluid's guides publish no fee schedule for lenders or borrowers; the costs are the floating rate and, if liquidated, a per-vault liquidation penalty. The Liquidity Layer page (https://fluid.guides.instadapp.io/liquidity-layer/unifying-liquidity, fetched 28 September 2026) states: "Fluid boasts the most advanced liquidation mechanisms, with penalties as low as 0.1%." The live penalties and rates are API fields, not page text: https://api.fluid.instadapp.io/v2/borrowing/1/vaults on 28 September 2026 returned liquidationPenalty 10 basis points (the 0.1% floor) on the wstETH/ETH vault (id 13) and 100 basis points on the ETH/USDC (id 11) and ETH/USDT (id 12) vaults, with borrow rates of 243, 584 and 567 basis points and a vault feeRate of 0 on all three. Rates float with utilisation, so no fixed APY is quoted.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
Custody modelEditorialNon-custodial: no company holds the coinsNon-custodial: no company holds the coins
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Compound
74#6 of 8
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Compound if rate authorship matters most — it scores 9/10 to Fluid (Instadapp)'s 8/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Rate authorship — 9/10
Tradeoff
Compound now has one of the cleanest RATE disclosures in this pool and one of the thinnest ORACLE disclosures, and a buyer who conflates the two will misprice it. Four specific traps. First, the page that tells you what liquidates you — https://docs.compound.finance/liquidation/ — never names an oracle at all ("This function uses the price returned by the protocol’s price feed"); Chainlink is named two clicks away on the helper-functions page, and a machine check of all nine Compound doc pages returns zero occurrences of deviation, heartbeat, staleness, median, fallback, killswitch or price bound. The one bounded feed Compound ever ran — the multisig-settable min/max and constant-price override added to rsETH after the 18 April 2026 Kelp bridge exploit — was REVERTED in May 2026 via Proposal 586, so as of today no Compound market carries a numeric price bound. Second, the docs registry is a snapshot, not live state: stamped 2026-02-28, it still advertises rsETH on the Ethereum USDC Comet at 85% borrow CF and a 1,500-token supply cap when the on-chain cap has since been set to 0, and it still lists ten mainnet networks when six of them — Polygon, Unichain, Linea, Mantle, Ronin and Scroll — are approved for deprecation with supply caps zeroed, collateral factors halved and supply rates being set to 0%. Read the Comet and the forum, not the docs table. Third, the one-week governance timelock that makes Compound's rate authorship trustworthy does NOT cover the emergency path: the Community Multi-Sig pause guardian can freeze withdrawals instantly (it did so across six networks in April 2026), and a 0% collateral factor mechanically locks collateral until debt is fully repaid — both disclosed on the forum, neither in the docs. Fourth, the named backstop is real but shrinking and undocumented at the tail: reserves on the Ethereum WETH Comet fell from 921.22 to 908.46 WETH between 10 May and 5 August 2026 because the comet "retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization", no Compound page says what happens once reserves are exhausted, and Compound discloses its losses well on comp.xyz and not at all on either page titled Security.
Fluid (Instadapp)
73#7 of 8
Pick it when
Pick Fluid (Instadapp) if blast radius matters most — it scores 8/10 to Compound's 7/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Rate authorship — 8/10
Tradeoff
Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
CompoundLeads
Choose Compound if rate authorship matters most
Rate authorship: 9/10 against 8/10 for Fluid (Instadapp) (weight 24)
Shortfall record: 8/10 against 7/10 for Fluid (Instadapp) (weight 20)
CompoundScore 74COMP-governed onchain money market whose Compound III (Comet) design gives each market exactly one borrowable base asset and a set of capped, non-lent collateral assets, priced by a single named Chainlink feed per asset with no published deviation bound, and liquidated whole by an absorb call paid out of protocol reserves.Strength: Rate authorship — 9/10Watch-out: Compound now has one of the cleanest RATE disclosures in this pool and one of the thinnest ORACLE disclosures, and a buyer who conflates the two will misprice it. Four specific traps. First, the page that tells you what liquidates you — https://docs.compound.finance/liquidation/ — never names an oracle at all ("This function uses the price returned by the protocol’s price feed"); Chainlink is named two clicks away on the helper-functions page, and a machine check of all nine Compound doc pages returns zero occurrences of deviation, heartbeat, staleness, median, fallback, killswitch or price bound. The one bounded feed Compound ever ran — the multisig-settable min/max and constant-price override added to rsETH after the 18 April 2026 Kelp bridge exploit — was REVERTED in May 2026 via Proposal 586, so as of today no Compound market carries a numeric price bound. Second, the docs registry is a snapshot, not live state: stamped 2026-02-28, it still advertises rsETH on the Ethereum USDC Comet at 85% borrow CF and a 1,500-token supply cap when the on-chain cap has since been set to 0, and it still lists ten mainnet networks when six of them — Polygon, Unichain, Linea, Mantle, Ronin and Scroll — are approved for deprecation with supply caps zeroed, collateral factors halved and supply rates being set to 0%. Read the Comet and the forum, not the docs table. Third, the one-week governance timelock that makes Compound's rate authorship trustworthy does NOT cover the emergency path: the Community Multi-Sig pause guardian can freeze withdrawals instantly (it did so across six networks in April 2026), and a 0% collateral factor mechanically locks collateral until debt is fully repaid — both disclosed on the forum, neither in the docs. Fourth, the named backstop is real but shrinking and undocumented at the tail: reserves on the Ethereum WETH Comet fell from 921.22 to 908.46 WETH between 10 May and 5 August 2026 because the comet "retains none of the interest borrowers pay at its optimal utilization", no Compound page says what happens once reserves are exhausted, and Compound discloses its losses well on comp.xyz and not at all on either page titled Security.
Fluid (Instadapp)
Choose Fluid (Instadapp) if blast radius matters most
Blast radius: 8/10 against 7/10 for Compound (weight 24)
Fluid (Instadapp)Score 73Shared-liquidity money market where collateral and debt can sit inside a Fluid DEX position; publishes per-vault oracle contract, LTV, liquidation threshold, penalty and absorbed bad debt live via its own API, and disclosed a ~$21M Resolv-driven shortfall (incident 22 Mar 2026) on its governance forum in amounts its own marketing recap then restates as $9.7M and attributes to the wrong payer.Strength: Rate authorship — 8/10Watch-out: Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Oracle liquidation price
weight 7.7 of 86Tie
Compound6/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)6/10 out of 10
Rate authorship
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Compound leads
Compound9/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)8/10 out of 10
Blast radius
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Fluid (Instadapp) leads
Compound7/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)8/10 out of 10
Shortfall record
by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Compound leads
Compound8/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)7/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
Compound14/20Fluid (Instadapp)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Compound17.7/30Fluid (Instadapp)17.2/30
Compound leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Compound2.7/10Fluid (Instadapp)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Compound3.2/8Fluid (Instadapp)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Compound8.3/18Fluid (Instadapp)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Compound unless the term Fluid (Instadapp) leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Fluid (Instadapp) if blast radius matters most — it scores 8/10 to Compound's 7/10 there (weight 24).
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? · 24% (Compound 9/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 8/10)
Oracle failure: a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.
Scored by What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? · 32% (Compound 6/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 6/10)
Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.
Scored by If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? · 24% (Compound 7/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 8/10)
Scored by Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? · 20% (Compound 8/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Compound scores 1 point above Fluid (Instadapp), led by rate authorship and shortfall record. Published scores, out of 100: Compound 74 (rank 6 of 8 lending & borrowing), Fluid (Instadapp) 73 (rank 7 of 8).
Reviewed means both products compared here was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
