Concrete vs Lagoon: Curated vaults or open infrastructure? (2026)

Concrete and Lagoon both serve onchain yield strategies, but they put users in different roles. Concrete presents curated vaults for depositors to choose by asset and risk. Its vault pages identify details such as the curator, target APY, audit list, deposit token and withdrawal token. Some large vaults are permissioned, however, and APYs on some of them are private.

Lagoon is more explicitly infrastructure for curators: anyone can deploy a vault, and managers can choose custody arrangements and build a front end using its API. Users need to assess each vault’s curator and strategy. Lagoon’s 22 listed chains give it broader reach than Concrete’s five, but that breadth does not remove curator or strategy risk. In short, Concrete emphasizes curated options; Lagoon emphasizes flexible vault creation and management.

Neither platform provides enough public information here to make a reliable fee-based price comparison. Concrete does not publish deposit, withdrawal, management or performance fees on its homepage, and it does not state whether displayed target APYs are net of fees. It directs users to each vault’s details, documentation and terms before depositing. Network gas costs also apply.

Lagoon’s own fee schedule is not laid out. Vaults can be deployed without an upfront fee, but users should check individual vault pages for curator-set management, performance, entry or exit fees. Lagoon also reports fees distributed, but that figure does not tell a depositor what a particular vault will charge. Both platforms therefore require vault-by-vault fee checks; do not assume a displayed return is net of all costs.

Both platforms carry smart-contract and strategy risks, and neither audit count should be treated as a guarantee. Concrete lists two audits, with auditors varying by vault; named firms include Halborn, Cantina, Code4rena and Zellic. Its vault keys use Fordefi or Fireblocks policy-controlled wallets with approval quorums and transaction policies. Users still face risks from curators, partner protocols and queued withdrawals.

Lagoon also has two audits listed, and its homepage says releases are audited, but public sources do not name the auditors or findings. Its vault factory contracts are described as upgradeable, which adds an admin-trust consideration. More importantly, Lagoon strategies are run by third-party curators; private credit and other off-chain strategies can add counterparty and valuation risks that onchain checks cannot fully remove. Read the specific vault’s terms, strategy and withdrawal process on either platform before depositing.

Concrete is oriented toward choosing among existing vaults. Its pages present vault-specific details, which can help users compare assets, target APYs, curators and withdrawal arrangements. That is useful, but some of the largest vaults are permissioned, and private APYs limit public comparison. Depositors should also account for withdrawal queues and the fact that target returns are not guaranteed.

Lagoon offers more flexibility to vault managers than a simple deposit interface: curators can choose custody options, set access controls, and use NAV and reporting services. Its ERC-7540 design means deposits and withdrawals are requested and then settled rather than executed instantly. That may suit strategies requiring asynchronous settlement, but it demands patience and attention to each curator’s process. The better experience depends on whether you want to select a curated vault or evaluate a specific manager’s strategy.