Arrakis Modular vs Kamino Liquidity: Which fits? (2026)

Both products manage concentrated liquidity, but they are designed for different jobs. Arrakis Modular uses Meta Vaults to manage two-sided liquidity and describes its approach as automated, non-custodial market making for token issuers. Its modular framework is intended to support different vault types and integrations. Kamino Liquidity is a Solana-based manager that places deposits into price ranges, rebalances positions and compounds fees and incentive rewards. It builds on existing concentrated-liquidity protocols rather than running its own pool.\n\nThe practical distinction is audience and scope. Arrakis is aimed mainly at issuers and institutions seeking active liquidity management across multiple chains and venues. Kamino positions itself for both retail users and institutions seeking a hands-off Solana liquidity strategy. Neither removes the possibility of losses when prices move or strategy conditions change.

Arrakis lists Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Plasma, Robinhood Chain and BNB Chain. Its venue coverage also names Uniswap V4, Aerodrome, PancakeSwap and Velodrome, among others. The project describes liquidity strategies for token issuers and also highlights markets for yield-bearing real-world assets, commodities and equities.\n\nKamino Liquidity lists Solana only. Its strategy manages positions on concentrated-liquidity protocols on that network, selecting ranges through quantitative models and adjusting them automatically. If you need liquidity management on chains beyond Solana, Kamino is not the match based on its listed coverage. If you need a Solana position managed through range selection, rebalancing and compounding, Kamino is the more direct fit. Arrakis offers broader listed chain coverage, but its stated focus on token issuers means it may be less suited to retail users seeking a self-serve vault.

Neither project publishes its exact fee terms. Arrakis directs issuers to contact the team rather than showing a price list. Kamino does not state its fee and performance structure in the details here; users should check vault-level terms in its app before depositing. Do not assume that a manager’s fee is the only cost.\n\nArrakis users should also account for gas and any trading fees charged by the underlying pools. Kamino users should factor in Solana network fees for transactions, alongside any applicable vault or underlying-protocol charges. Compare the specific vault terms and expected costs for the strategy you plan to use. The two listed TVL figures are about $55.2 million for Arrakis Modular and $66.9 million for Kamino Liquidity; TVL alone does not establish likely returns, strategy quality or suitability.

Both products list two audits, but neither publishes the auditors’ names or audit findings here. Both rely on smart contracts, so an audit count does not guarantee that funds are safe. Arrakis’s stated non-custodial approach keeps liquidity self-custodial for the issuer, but smart-contract, upgrade or admin-key, oracle and venue risks remain possible. Kamino users keep custody through their own wallets, while also taking on risks from Kamino contracts and the Solana DEXs it uses.\n\nBoth strategies can face impermanent loss and price-range risk. Kamino’s positions may be affected when prices move outside active ranges; Arrakis also warns of concentrated-liquidity range risk. Neither project states its regulatory status here. Review the specific vault and underlying protocol before depositing, and do not treat the absence of a reported incident as proof that no incident has occurred.

Choose Arrakis Modular if you are a token issuer or institution that needs actively managed, self-custodial liquidity across several listed chains and venues. Its Meta Vault framework and issuer-oriented market-making model are its clearest advantages. Its pricing is not published, and its stated audience means it may offer fewer self-serve options for retail users.\n\nChoose Kamino Liquidity if your assets are on Solana and you want range selection, automatic rebalancing and fee compounding handled for you. It explicitly includes retail users in its audience and also sits within a broader protocol that includes credit and borrowing markets. That wider scope does not change the liquidity strategy’s market and smart-contract risks. Before choosing either, confirm the exact vault terms and costs, and make sure you understand how concentrated liquidity can behave when prices move.