Aave V3 vs Compound V3: Which Protocol Pays More in 2026?
A detailed comparison of Aave V3 and Compound V3 for stablecoin yield. We compare APY, supported assets, chains, safety records and user experience.
Aave and Compound are the two most battle-tested lending protocols in DeFi. Together they have processed hundreds of billions in loans without a core contract exploit. But they’re not identical — and the differences matter depending on what you’re trying to do.
This comparison focuses specifically on supplying stablecoins to earn yield. If you’re looking at borrowing mechanics or leverage strategies, the calculus changes.
The Short Answer
- For Ethereum mainnet USDC: Compound V3 and Aave V3 are very close. Check the current rates on our comparison table and pick whichever is higher at the time of your deposit.
- For multi-chain diversification: Aave V3 wins — it operates on significantly more chains.
- For simplicity and a single-asset focus: Compound V3’s Comet model is architecturally cleaner.
- For reward token farming: Aave V3 frequently distributes AAVE token rewards on top of base yield.
Protocol Overview
Aave V3
Aave V3 launched in 2022 and introduced efficiency modes, cross-chain portals, and improved risk management over V2. It currently operates on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, Avalanche, and others.
For stablecoin lenders, the relevant thing is the supply APY — the interest rate paid to suppliers. This floats with utilisation: the more a pool is borrowed, the higher the rate. Aave V3 also distributes AAVE token incentives on some markets, adding a reward APY on top of the base rate.
Compound V3 (Comet)
Compound V3 represents a full redesign. Rather than a multi-asset pool where any supplied asset earns yield, each Comet market has one borrowable asset (USDC on Ethereum, USDC on Arbitrum, etc.) with multiple approved collateral types.
This architecture has a key implication for lenders: you supply USDC to a USDC market and earn USDC interest. It’s simpler and has lower systemic risk because different collateral types can’t drag down your specific market.
APY Comparison
Current live rates are always available on the comparison table — APYs change daily with market demand. Historically:
| Asset & Chain | Aave V3 | Compound V3 |
|---|---|---|
| USDC on Ethereum | 3–7% | 3–7% |
| USDC on Arbitrum | 3–6% | 3–6% |
| USDT on Ethereum | 3–6% | Not supported |
| DAI on Ethereum | 4–8% | Not supported |
Compound V3 focuses exclusively on USDC markets. If you want to lend USDT or DAI, Aave is the only option between the two.
Chains Supported
| Chain | Aave V3 | Compound V3 |
|---|---|---|
| Ethereum | ✓ | ✓ |
| Arbitrum | ✓ | ✓ |
| Optimism | ✓ | ✗ |
| Base | ✓ | ✗ |
| Polygon | ✓ | ✗ |
| Avalanche | ✓ | ✗ |
| BNB Chain | ✓ | ✗ |
Aave V3 has substantially broader chain coverage. If you operate on L2s beyond Arbitrum, Aave is your primary option.
Safety Comparison
Both protocols have been extensively audited and have operated without core contract exploits for years.
Aave V3:
- Audited by Trail of Bits, ABDK, Peckshield, Certora (formal verification)
- Protected by Aave Safety Module — up to 30% of staked AAVE can be slashed to cover a shortfall
- Open Bug Bounty on Immunefi
Compound V3:
- Audited by OpenZeppelin and Code4rena community audits
- Governed by COMP token holders with a timelock
- Pause guardian multisig for emergency pauses
Neither has suffered a core exploit. Compound V2 (a separate codebase) had a distribution bug in 2021, but this was in the rewards contract, not the core lending logic, and no user funds were drained from suppliers.
Our assessment: Both are 5/5 on our safety scale. If forced to choose, Compound V3’s simpler Comet architecture has a smaller attack surface.
User Experience
Aave V3:
- Clean interface at app.aave.com
- Dashboard shows your total supplied, borrowed, health factor
- Slightly more complex to navigate with many markets across many chains
Compound V3:
- Interface at app.compound.finance
- Arguably simpler for USDC-only users
- Real-time interest counter in the UI is satisfying
Both work with MetaMask, Rabby, WalletConnect and Coinbase Wallet. Neither requires KYC or account creation.
Gas Costs
On Ethereum mainnet, supplying to either protocol costs roughly $5–25 in gas depending on network congestion. On Arbitrum, the same transaction costs $0.05–$0.50.
If you’re depositing less than $1,000, use Arbitrum or another L2 to avoid gas eating into your returns.
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Aave V3 if:
- You want USDT, DAI, or GHO yield options
- You’re operating on multiple chains beyond Arbitrum
- You want AAVE token rewards on top of base yield
- You want the broadest market selection
Choose Compound V3 if:
- You’re lending USDC specifically
- You prefer a simpler, single-asset architecture
- You want a protocol with a smaller attack surface
The pragmatic answer: Monitor both on our live table and allocate to whichever offers a higher APY at the time of deposit. Both are safe, established protocols. Chasing an extra 0.5% APY is valid when the risk profile is equivalent.
Ready to compare live rates?
See current APY across all tracked protocols, updated every 15 minutes.
View live yield table →