Arrakis Modular vs Kodiak Islands: Which fits your needs? (2026)

Arrakis Modular and Kodiak Islands both manage liquidity, but they target different users and workflows. Arrakis is a framework for token issuers who want active, self-custodial market making through Meta Vaults. Its modular design is intended to support different vault types, and its listed chain support spans six networks. Kodiak Islands package concentrated-liquidity positions on Berachain’s Kodiak DEX into ERC-20 tokens. Their automated range management is designed to reduce the need to monitor positions manually.

That difference matters more than TVL: Arrakis reports about $55.2 million, compared with about $36.0 million for Kodiak Islands, but each serves a distinct liquidity strategy. Kodiak is the more direct fit for a user seeking a tokenized LP position on Berachain. Arrakis is better aligned with issuers managing markets across supported chains and venues.

Arrakis has not published its fees. Issuers should check the app and documentation for any management or performance charges, and account for gas and trading fees from the underlying pools before committing liquidity.

Kodiak’s fees are more specific but not complete. Managed Islands charge a 10% manager fee on the LP fees they earn; permissionless Islands use fixed ranges. Each Island’s current fee is displayed in the Kodiak app before deposit. Users also face Berachain gas costs and the effects of the underlying pool’s trading-fee tier. The manager fee reduces the LP-fee amount retained by a depositor, so compare the displayed Island terms with the position’s expected trading activity and risks. Neither platform’s stated information guarantees returns.

Both projects have two audits listed, but neither names the auditors or explains the audit findings here. An audit is not a guarantee against contract bugs or losses. Arrakis says liquidity is non-custodial and self-custodial for issuers, yet vaults still depend on smart contracts; upgrade or admin-key risks and failures involving oracles or venues may matter. Liquidity providers also face impermanent loss and price-range risk.

Kodiak deposits are held in on-chain vaults, so users rely on the contracts after depositing. Its Berachain-only focus adds exposure to that chain’s ecosystem, liquidity and bridge risks. Incentive rewards, including KDK or partner tokens, may change or lose value. Neither project’s stated information identifies regulatory status or reports incidents, so do not treat silence on those points as proof of safety.

Choose Arrakis Modular if you are a token issuer looking for active market making, self-custodial liquidity management and a modular framework that spans multiple supported chains. Its broader venue coverage and issuer focus are the main reasons to prefer it. The trade-off is that pricing is not published and its service is less oriented toward retail self-service.

Choose Kodiak Islands if you want concentrated-liquidity exposure on Berachain, prefer a position represented as an ERC-20 token, or want automated range management with a choice between managed and permissionless Islands. Check the specific Island’s fee and range terms before depositing. If you do not want Berachain-specific exposure or the risks of concentrated liquidity, Kodiak is a poor fit. Neither option removes market or smart-contract risk.