Aura vs Convex: Which yield platform fits you? (2026)

Aura and Convex are both yield aggregators, but they serve different protocol ecosystems. Aura is built around Balancer: users can deposit eligible Balancer LP positions for boosted rewards, while pooled BAL activity offers a route to veBAL exposure without individually locking BAL. Its AURA token can also be locked for governance influence. Convex pools liquidity positions from Curve, Frax and f(x), applying group boosts to rewards; it also offers cvxCRV staking and vlCVX voting. This makes the practical decision less about choosing a general-purpose yield app and more about which underlying protocols you already use. Aura supports nine chains, including Base and Optimism, while Convex lists four, including Ethereum and Fraxtal. Convex’s stated ease-of-use score is higher, but neither platform removes the need to understand the underlying pools and tokens.

Convex is substantially larger by TVL, at about $525.6 million compared with Aura’s roughly $9.5 million. That is a meaningful difference in scale, but TVL alone does not establish security, liquidity at a specific moment or future performance. Both platforms’ returns depend on the protocols beneath them, token prices and reward emissions; there is no fixed return to compare here. Aura’s reward opportunities are tied to Balancer and AURA or BAL-related incentives, while Convex’s depend on Curve, Frax and f(x) activity and emissions. Neither project publishes a fee schedule or specific fee percentages. Check the current pool details and official documentation before depositing, claiming or withdrawing. Network gas costs also apply, and underlying Balancer pool swap fees may affect Aura users. Do not compare advertised or variable APRs without checking which pool, token rewards and risks each figure includes.

Both platforms have two audits listed, but the auditors and audit results are not published. Convex describes its contracts as immutable and non-custodial and says they have been peer-reviewed and audited by third-party firms. Aura is also used through users’ own wallets, but its deposits rely on Aura contracts as well as Balancer contracts. In either case, audits do not guarantee that contracts are free of bugs. Aura users also face risks from Balancer, liquidity-pool impermanent loss, reward-token price declines and governance lock-ups. Convex users inherit smart-contract and ecosystem risks from Convex and the protocols it supports, while reward values can change with token prices and emissions. Convex describes deposits as withdrawable at any time; Aura’s AURA governance locking has a lock-up period, which should not be confused with the terms for every deposit. Check the specific pool and withdrawal conditions before committing funds.

Choose Aura if your strategy is centered on Balancer and you want boosted LP rewards, pooled veBAL participation or access to its nine-chain deployment. It is a more specialized option, and its smaller TVL and dependence on Balancer make that focus important to weigh. Choose Convex if you provide liquidity through Curve, Frax or f(x), want pooled boosted staking, or value its cvxCRV and cross-protocol governance features. Convex has much higher TVL and a higher stated ease-of-use score, but its larger scale does not guarantee better returns or lower risk. Both require you to consider token exposure, smart-contract dependencies and changing rewards. If you are choosing between them without a preference for either ecosystem, start by identifying the pool and underlying protocol you want exposure to, then compare its current terms and risks in the app.