At a glance
Renzo ↗ and Bedrock ↗ are both liquid restaking protocols, but they target different restaking assets and ecosystems. Renzo focuses on ETH liquid restaking with ezETH and has built a $0.09B TVL across 7 chains. Bedrock offers multi-asset liquid restaking — uniBTC for BTC, uniETH for ETH, and uniIOTX for IoTeX — with a $300M TVL on 6 chains. If you are an ETH-native restaker, Renzo is the ETH-focused option with the widest chain coverage. If you hold BTC and want to restake it, Bedrock’s uniBTC is a direct on-ramp.
Key differences
Three dimensions separate them. First, supported assets: Renzo only tokenizes restaked ETH (ezETH), whereas Bedrock extends restaking to BTC (uniBTC) and IoTeX (uniIOTX), appealing to a multi-asset audience. Second, TVL and liquidity: Bedrock holds roughly $300M in total value locked, over three times Renzo’s $0.09B, giving it deeper aggregate liquidity, though Renzo’s is concentrated in ETH restaking. Third, chain footprint: Renzo deploys on 7 chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Linea, BNB, Base, Mode, Blast), while Bedrock covers 6 (Ethereum, Arbitrum, BNB, Optimism, Base, Mantle). The overlap is significant, but Renzo’s inclusion of Linea, Mode, and Blast may benefit users active on those networks. Audit backgrounds also differ: Renzo engaged Halborn and Sigma Prime; Bedrock worked with SlowMist and Salus. Both have had incidents: Renzo’s ezETH briefly depegged in April 2024, and Bedrock’s uniBTC suffered a ~$2M exploit in September 2024.
Security and track record
Both protocols have had incidents. Renzo’s ezETH briefly depegged in April 2024 amid airdrop-driven selling, triggering leveraged liquidations across DeFi. Bedrock’s uniBTC suffered a ~$2M exploit in September 2024 via a flawed mint function. Renzo’s audits from Halborn and Sigma Prime inspect its operator delegation and bridging logic for ezETH. Bedrock’s audits from SlowMist and Salus cover its multi-asset vaults and integrations with Babylon, EigenLayer, and Symbiotic. Because Bedrock launched a year earlier (2023 vs 2024), it has a slightly longer battle-testing period, though Renzo’s broad multichain footprint gives it wide user exposure. Both protocols remain relatively new; treat them as higher-risk than mature lending protocols.
Fees and costs
Neither Renzo nor Bedrock discloses a fixed fee schedule in our data. Liquid restaking protocols typically charge a small percentage of staking rewards (e.g., 5–10%) as a protocol fee, but the exact figures vary by asset and integration. Check the official documentation for current fee terms.
Which should you choose
- Pick Renzo if you are an ETH holder focused on liquid restaking and want the widest multichain coverage (7 chains). Its ezETH token is well integrated with EigenLayer ↗ and DeFi markets.
- Pick Bedrock if you want to restake BTC or diversify across multiple assets (uniBTC, uniETH, uniIOTX). Its $300M TVL is smaller but growing, and it offers exposure to BTC yield opportunities via Babylon and other integrations.
Verdict
There is no universal winner. Renzo leads on chain breadth for ETH liquid restaking. Bedrock wins for BTC restaking utility. The decision hinges on your underlying asset: ETH for Renzo, BTC for Bedrock.