Concrete vs Makina: which yield allocator fits? (2026)

Concrete and Makina both allocate capital to onchain yield strategies, but organize that activity differently. Concrete offers curated vaults, each with its own deposit token, target APY, curator and withdrawal token. Vaults operate across five listed networks, and users can compare them by asset and risk. Concrete also reports substantially higher TVL: about $1.27 billion versus Makina’s roughly $39 million.

Makina is infrastructure for professional Operators. Operators package strategies into Machines, which allocate through Calibers; Makina says mandates and risk parameters are enforced onchain. Its listed deployments cover Ethereum and Base. In short, Concrete presents vaults for depositors to choose from, while Makina emphasizes the system and Operators behind each strategy.

Neither platform publishes a fee schedule on its homepage. Concrete does not list deposit, withdrawal, management or performance fees there; Makina does not state Machine management or performance fees. Before depositing, check the specific vault or Machine page, documentation and applicable terms. Ethereum and other network gas costs also apply to transactions.

Their yield displays need careful reading. Concrete shows target APYs, which are not guaranteed, and public sources note that some of its largest vaults show private APYs. It is also not stated whether displayed targets are net of fees. Makina shows 30-day live APY figures for curated strategies, while its stock-yield Machines show APYs in a 3.7% to 4.8% range. Those figures are not guarantees either. Compare the strategy and its risks, not just the displayed rate.

Both platforms carry smart-contract and strategy risk, and neither audit count guarantees that funds are safe. Concrete lists two audits overall, with auditors varying by vault; its materials name Halborn, Cantina, Code4rena and Zellic. Some vaults may show no auditor on the homepage. Concrete also says vault keys use Fordefi or Fireblocks MPC wallets with approval quorums and transaction policies. Its vault strategies and partner protocols remain sources of risk, and withdrawals may pass through a queue.

Makina also has two audits listed, but public sources do not name the auditors or provide reports. Its risks include smart contracts, Operator decisions, underlying protocols and cross-chain execution. The homepage mentions Nexus Mutual-powered Machine coverage, but public terms are not given. Makina is described as non-custodial, with users retaining custody of their assets; that design does not remove strategy or contract risk.

Concrete offers more listed networks and a range of vault assets, including stablecoins and WBTC. Its vault pages provide details such as target APY, curator and withdrawal token, but access is not uniform: some of the largest vaults are permissioned, and the platform blocks users in restricted jurisdictions. Public sources do not specify which jurisdictions. Withdrawal queues can also mean exits are not instant, so users should check each vault’s terms and queue before depositing.

Makina has fewer listed networks, Ethereum and Base, and some Machines are private or gated. It also offers Machines tied to tokenized stocks such as AAPL, MSFT and NVDA, which may suit users seeking that exposure but add a product type many DeFi users may find unfamiliar. Both platforms have an ease-of-use score of 7, but they serve different strategy preferences.

Choose Concrete if you want a larger, multi-chain set of curated vaults and are prepared to compare vault-specific assets, permissions, APYs and withdrawal conditions. Its listed TVL is much higher, but size alone does not establish safety, and permissioned vaults or private APYs may limit your choices. Check fees and whether a vault’s exit queue fits your needs.

Choose Makina if you prefer Operator-managed strategies with stated onchain mandates, or are specifically interested in its Machines for tokenized-stock yield. You will need to assess each Operator and strategy, and its shorter track record and unpublished fee details matter. Neither is a clear choice for users who require published fees or guaranteed returns. Compare the underlying strategy and risks before committing funds.