Arrakis Modular vs Gamma: Which liquidity manager fits? (2026)

Arrakis Modular and Gamma both automate concentrated-liquidity management, but they target different users. Arrakis is built mainly for token issuers who want active, self-custodial market making. Its Meta Vault standard is designed to let different two-sided liquidity vaults share infrastructure, and its listed venue coverage includes Uniswap V4, Aerodrome, PancakeSwap and Velodrome, as well as Solana and Hyperliquid market making.

Gamma is more directly oriented toward liquidity providers choosing and managing vault positions. It automates range adjustments and offers several product lines, including V2 Vaults, Pooled Vaults, a Limit Order Book and Perp Vaults. Its dashboard shows vault-level TVL, volume, fees and APR, and users can create a custom Uniswap V4 LP vault. Gamma lists far more chains, while Arrakis has substantially higher listed TVL. Those differences matter more than a simple feature-count comparison: consider whether you need issuer-focused market making or a broader vault selection.

Neither protocol publishes its management or performance fee rates, so it is not possible to compare their charges directly. Arrakis directs issuers to contact the team rather than showing a price list. Before using an Arrakis vault, clarify any management or performance fee, along with gas costs and trading fees charged by the underlying DEX pools.

Gamma also leaves its fee levels unpublished. Its vault table displays 24-hour volume, fees and APR, which can help compare activity between vaults, but those figures do not establish your net return. Gas costs apply when depositing or withdrawing, and gross returns may be affected by the chosen pool, strategy and any Merkl incentives. Incentives can change or end, so do not treat a displayed APR as a guaranteed rate. Ask for the applicable charges and check what a vault’s displayed figures include before committing funds.

Both protocols list two audits, but neither publishes the auditors, dates or findings in the details here. An audit listing is not a guarantee that contracts are free of vulnerabilities. Arrakis says its liquidity management is non-custodial and self-custodial for issuers; Gamma is described as non-custodial, with funds held in smart contracts rather than by a company. These designs do not remove smart-contract risk or risks from underlying venues.

Both also use concentrated liquidity, which can expose providers to impermanent loss and price-range risk. Arrakis notes possible upgrade or admin-key and oracle or venue failures. Gamma’s wide network and DEX coverage means users depend on the specific contracts, chain and pool chosen. Neither publishes regulatory status, and neither mentions past incidents in the details here. Check each project’s official documentation and the exact vault configuration before depositing, and only risk funds you can afford to lose.

Choose Arrakis Modular if you are a token issuer or institution looking for actively managed, self-custodial liquidity and a modular vault framework. Its higher listed TVL, Meta Vault design and multi-venue coverage make it the more issuer-oriented option. It is less compelling if you are a retail provider looking for a wide selection of self-serve vaults or published fees; those fee terms are not available upfront.

Choose Gamma if you want to compare individual vaults, monitor their displayed activity, or manage positions across a much wider set of chains. Its range automation and custom Uniswap V4 vault creation are useful for providers who want more direct vault-level options. But Gamma’s lower listed TVL and unpublished fee rates deserve consideration, and incentives may change. Neither option is a low-risk substitute for holding a token: compare the underlying pool, strategy, contract risks and total costs before choosing.