At a glance
Curve ↗ and Uniswap v4 ↗ represent two distinct approaches to decentralized exchange. Curve is a battle-tested stableswap AMM launched in 2020 with $1.3B TVL across 8 chains, optimized for low-slippage swaps between pegged assets. Uniswap v4, launched in 2025, is a next-gen singleton AMM with $0.83B TVL on 6 chains, designed for customizability via hooks. The choice hinges on whether you need specialized stablecoin liquidity or a flexible, future-proof trading layer.
Key differences
- TVL and liquidity: Curve holds $1.3B in TVL vs Uniswap v4’s $0.83B, giving it deeper liquidity for stablecoin and correlated-asset pools. However, Uniswap v4’s TVL is growing rapidly following its 2025 launch.
- Chain availability: Curve supports 8 chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Base, Fantom, Gnosis) compared to Uniswap v4’s 6 (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, Unichain). Curve offers broader EVM coverage, while Uniswap v4 includes Unichain, its dedicated L2.
- AMM design: Curve uses its stableswap invariant to minimize slippage for pegged assets, plus vote-escrow CRV governance directing emissions to pools. Uniswap v4 introduces a singleton contract with hooks—external smart contracts that can customize pools with dynamic fees, on-chain limits, and custom swap curves—plus flash accounting to cut gas costs.
- Maturity: Curve launched in 2020 and has withstood multiple market cycles; Uniswap v4, though built on the well-tested Uniswap ↗ codebase, is only a year old.
Security and track record
Both protocols have undergone rigorous audits. Curve was reviewed by Trail of Bits, Quantstamp, and ChainSecurity. Uniswap v4 was audited by Trail of Bits, Spearbit, and Certora. Uniswap v4 has no known exploit to date; Curve, despite its audits, saw several of its pools drained for roughly $70M in July 2023 through a reentrancy bug in the Vyper compiler (not Curve’s own contract logic), with a large share of the funds later returned. Curve’s longer operational history (since 2020) still provides more evidence of resilience, and Uniswap v4 inherits the battle-tested design of earlier Uniswap versions. All contracts are immutable, reducing upgrade risk, but hook-based pools in Uniswap v4 introduce additional attack surface if hooks are poorly coded.
Fees and costs
Fee structures are not explicitly enumerated in our dataset for either protocol. Generally, Curve’s stableswap pools charge low fees—often 0.04% for major stablecoins—making it cost-effective for high-volume stable swaps. Uniswap v4 enables pool creators to set dynamic fee tiers via hooks, so costs vary by pool. Both protocols benefit from Ethereum’s L2 scaling, which has driven down gas fees. For the latest fee numbers, check the official apps.
Which should you choose
- Pick Curve if you primarily trade stablecoins, pegged assets (e.g., wBTC/renBTC), or need deep liquidity with minimal slippage. Its longer track record and broader chain support also suit a conservative DEX strategy.
- Pick Uniswap v4 if you want the most programmable DEX, the ability to tap into custom hook-based strategies (like automatically rebalancing liquidity), or if you’re building novel DeFi applications that require flexible AMM logic. Its flash accounting makes it cheaper for complex multi-hop trades on supported chains.
Verdict
The winner is context-dependent. Curve remains the go-to for stable-asset exchange with unmatched peg-asset liquidity, while Uniswap v4 pioneers the programmability frontier. For pure stablecoin efficiency, Curve wins; for customization and forward-looking architecture, Uniswap v4 takes the lead.