At a glance
Compound ↗ and Radiant Capital ↗ are both DeFi lending protocols, but they operate at vastly different scales and risk profiles. As of 2026-07-15, Compound holds $1.3B in TVL across five chains, while Radiant manages just under $0.01B across three. Radiant’s cross-chain capability via LayerZero sets it apart, but a major exploit in October 2024 forced it into safe mode and it shut down in 2026. Compound’s eight-year track record with no known incidents and top-tier audits makes it the safer, more liquid choice. Radiant targets users willing to trade security for cross-chain composability.
Key differences
- TVL and liquidity: Compound’s $1.3B TVL dwarfs Radiant’s under $0.01B. Deeper liquidity means lower slippage for large deposits and borrows, and it reflects broader user trust.
- Chain support: Compound deploys on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base, and Optimism (5 chains). Radiant is limited to Arbitrum, BNB Chain, and Ethereum (3 chains). Compound’s broader reach provides more yield opportunities and collateral options.
- Security audits: Compound has been audited by OpenZeppelin, Trail of Bits, and Certora. Radiant’s audits (PeckShield, Zokyo, BlockSec) are less prominent, and the protocol suffered a major exploit in 2024. It shut down in 2026 after failing to recover.
- Mechanism and ecosystem: Compound v3 (Comet) uses single-borrow-asset markets with multiple collaterals, reducing risk and improving capital efficiency. Radiant builds on Aave v3 and LayerZero for cross-chain lending, but the exploit has severely damaged its reputation and TVL.
Security and track record
Compound launched in 2018 and has accumulated over eight years of live operation with no major hacks reported in our data. Its code has been scrutinized by three top-tier audit firms, and the v3 architecture deliberately isolates risk per market. Radiant, launched in 2022, also completed three audits, but a 2024 exploit ultimately forced it to shut down in 2026. Operating a cross-chain money market increases attack surface; Radiant’s reliance on LayerZero introduces bridge risk absent from Compound’s multi-chain design without cross-chain links. For risk-averse users, Compound’s long, clean record provides greater confidence.
Fees and costs
Neither protocol lists fixed fees in our dataset. Both use dynamic interest rates driven by utilization, with a small reserve factor accruing to the protocol treasury. Compound’s deep liquidity often leads to more stable rates, but exact figures depend on asset and market conditions. Radiant, with low TVL, may exhibit higher rate volatility. For current fee schedules, consult each protocol’s official documentation.
Which should you choose
- Pick Compound if you prioritize safety, deep liquidity, and a battle-tested protocol. Its $1.3B TVL, five-chain deployment, and v3 risk-isolation design suit conservative depositors and large borrowers.
- Pick Radiant if you explicitly need cross-chain lending via LayerZero and are willing to accept the substantial risk of a protocol that shut down in 2026. The under $0.01B TVL and lower audit frequency mean higher counterparty risk.
Verdict
Compound wins for the vast majority of users. Its size, track record, and audit quality overshadow Radiant’s cross-chain niche. Radiant’s 2024 exploit and minuscule TVL make it unsuitable for risk-averse participants, though it may appeal to speculators betting on its recovery. For reliable lending, Compound remains the superior choice.