Clearstar vs Gauntlet: risk-first curator or scale? (2026)

Both firms curate DeFi strategies and add a layer of risk management between users and underlying protocols. Clearstar’s distinguishing feature is its risk-first advisory approach: it describes scored, tiered assessments and qualitative reviews of governance, permissions, contracts and oracles. It also offers ongoing vault operations, monitoring and incident response. Gauntlet presents a broader vault and distribution model, pairing quantitative risk frameworks with human oversight. Its offerings include curated yield vaults, strategies for specific assets, embedded Earn programs and Aera vault infrastructure. Gauntlet says its risk-management work dates to 2018 and describes institutional and app-based distribution. In short, Clearstar foregrounds its diligence and lifecycle support, while Gauntlet combines risk management with a wider set of vault products and partner integrations. Neither profile makes fees or audit coverage easy to compare: both lack a published fee schedule, and no audits are listed.

Gauntlet has the larger listed TVL, at about $1.54 billion, versus roughly $188 million for Clearstar. It also lists more chains: 14 compared with Clearstar’s 11. The two share several networks, including Base, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Hyperliquid, Polygon, Unichain and Katana; their other listed chains differ. These figures indicate the scale and stated network coverage, but they do not establish that a particular vault is available on every listed chain or that it has the same risk profile across networks. TVL can change, and greater TVL is not proof of better returns or stronger security. Check the specific vault’s chain, underlying protocols, current deposits and strategy documentation before choosing. Clearstar’s comparatively smaller listed TVL may still suit users who value its advisory and risk-reporting approach; Gauntlet’s larger scale may appeal to users seeking its institutional distribution and broader product set.

Neither curator publishes a general fee schedule. Clearstar says advisory engagements appear to be bespoke and directs prospective clients to contact it; for deposits, any management or performance fee would normally be shown on the vault platform hosting the strategy. Gauntlet likewise does not publish vault fee structures. It says users of at least one integration, KAST Earn, pay no gas fees and that protocol rewards are auto-redeemed and compounded, but that detail should not be treated as a general promise for every Gauntlet vault or integration. Before depositing, inspect the specific vault page and its documentation for management fees, performance fees, gas costs and reward handling. If those details are unclear, do not assume the cost is zero. Since neither fee comparison is complete, price alone cannot settle the choice between them.

Public information shows no audits for either curator, so users should look for audit reports covering the specific vault contracts they intend to use. Gauntlet names Hypernative for onchain monitoring, Zeroshadow for response monitoring and Chainalysis for tracing. Those tools may support monitoring and response, but they are not a substitute for code audits or protection against losses. Clearstar describes ongoing checks on collateral health, oracle integrity and liquidity, with alerts that can escalate into protective action; its review also notes that public sources do not provide incident history or audit coverage. With either curator, deposits remain exposed to curator decisions and the risks of underlying protocols and markets. Gauntlet’s review specifically notes protocol and market risks, including depegs and liquidity crunches. Clearstar’s review highlights the added risk of relying on its allocation and parameter decisions. Neither approach removes the possibility of loss.

Choose Clearstar if your priority is a curator that describes published risk reports, qualitative diligence and support across strategy design, monitoring and incident response. Its profile may fit allocators seeking advisory work as well as vault curation, but its fee details, scoring methodology and audit coverage are not published. Choose Gauntlet if you value its larger listed TVL, broader chain list, stated quantitative risk-management experience and range of vault and distribution products. Its research, dashboards and VaultBook documentation may also give users more material to examine. Gauntlet’s product focus includes institutions and integrating apps, so direct retail guidance and fee detail may be limited. For either choice, compare the actual vault strategy, contracts, underlying protocols and costs—not only the curator’s overall profile. Neither has a token, and neither should be treated as a guarantee of yield or principal protection.