Comparison · Updated
Concrete vs Mitosis: Vaults or Cross-Chain Liquidity (2026)
Concrete is the larger, more established option for curated yield vaults; Mitosis is built around tokenized liquidity positions and broader cross-chain use. Neither publishes a full fee schedule, and each has distinct risks.
Concrete
Onchain Capital Allocator
TVL $1.21B · 5 chains
Mitosis
Onchain Capital Allocator
TVL $1.26M · 12 chains
Side by side
Concrete vs Mitosis at a glance
| Concrete | Mitosis | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Onchain capital allocator with curated yield vaults | Onchain capital allocator and Layer 1 for programmable liquidity positions |
| TVL | About $1.27 billion | About $1.3 million |
| Chains | Ethereum, Stable, Arbitrum, Berachain, Katana | BNB Chain, Linea, Arbitrum, Ethereum, Morph, Base, Optimism, Manta, Scroll, Mantle, Mode, Blast |
| Token | CT; users can stake it for sCT | MITO; gMITO is also described in project documentation |
| Fees | Fees are not published on the homepage; check vault details, documentation, and terms | A fee schedule is not published; costs may appear in the app and documentation |
| Security and audits | Audits are listed by vault; named auditors include Halborn, Cantina, Code4rena, and Zellic. Coverage varies, and some vaults list no auditor. | Two audits are listed, but auditor names and findings are not published in the project details. |
| Ease of use | Ease-of-use score: 7/10 | Ease-of-use score: 6.5/10 |
| Standout features | Curated vaults with target APYs, vault tokens, withdrawal queues, and policy-controlled wallets | Cross-chain settlement, transferable tokenized LP positions, and targeted liquidity campaigns |
| Key caveat | Returns are targets, not guarantees; some large vaults are permissioned and some APYs are private. | Yield figures are not stated; the design adds smart-contract, messaging, and settlement risks. |
| Best for | Users seeking curated vaults and a larger TVL, who can assess each vault’s access and strategy | Users interested in tokenized LP positions and cross-chain liquidity infrastructure |
How Concrete and Mitosis differ
Concrete and Mitosis both aim to coordinate onchain capital, but they offer different products. Concrete organizes curated vaults: you choose a vault by asset and risk, deposit, and receive a vault token. Each vault has its own curator, target APY, withdrawal token, and exit details. Some large vaults are permissioned, and some public APYs are private.
Mitosis centers on a Layer 1 network for cross-chain liquidity. Users deposit into its treasury and receive tokens representing deposits, while liquidity providers can hold and trade tokenized LP positions. Its aim is to reduce repeated bridging and make liquidity positions usable across applications. That design is more infrastructure-oriented than Concrete’s vault selection. Choose Concrete to evaluate individual yield strategies; consider Mitosis if transferable positions and cross-chain settlement are the main draw.
TVL and chain coverage
Concrete lists five networks: Ethereum, Stable, Arbitrum, Berachain, and Katana. Its vaults can take assets including USDT, USDC, USD1, and WBTC, though the available assets depend on the vault. Concrete reports about $1.27 billion in TVL, but that size does not make every vault accessible or guarantee its performance.
Mitosis lists twelve supported chains, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, BNB Chain, and Linea. Its TVL is about $1.3 million. The wider chain list may suit users looking for cross-chain liquidity tools, but it does not mean every position or application is available on every network. The difference in TVL is substantial, yet TVL is only one consideration: check the specific assets, apps, and routes you intend to use, along with their risks and availability.
Fees and returns
Neither project publishes a complete fee schedule. Concrete does not publish deposit, withdrawal, management, or performance fees on its homepage. It advises users to check each vault’s details, documentation, and terms. Ethereum network gas costs also apply to transactions on Ethereum, and the published target APYs are not stated to be net of fees.
Mitosis likewise does not publish a fee schedule. Costs for depositing, withdrawing, or trading tokenized positions may be shown in its app or documentation, and users should expect network gas fees on the chains where they deposit. Mitosis does not state yield figures in its project details. Do not assume either platform is cheaper based on its product design or target returns: check the costs for the exact asset, chain, and action before committing funds.
Safety and audit details
Concrete lists audits from Halborn, Cantina, Code4rena, and Zellic across its vault pages, but the auditors differ by vault; some vaults show no auditor. Its vault keys use Fordefi or Fireblocks MPC wallets, with approval quorums and transaction policies. Those controls do not remove risks from smart contracts, curators, strategies, partner protocols, or queued withdrawals. Target APYs are not guaranteed, and some vaults may not be open to all users.
Mitosis has two audits listed, but auditor names and findings are not published in its project details. Its cross-chain design involves smart contracts, messaging, and settlement layers, each of which can fail. The project describes its design as non-custodial and says applications cannot access user funds, but that is not independent verification. Before using either platform, review the relevant audit reports and understand the specific vault or route. Only deposit what you can afford to lose.
Which one should you choose?
Concrete is the clearer fit if you want to choose among curated vaults, compare their assets and target APYs, and assess each curator and withdrawal process. Its much larger TVL may matter to users looking for a more established pool of capital, but some large vaults are permissioned, some APYs are private, and withdrawals may use a queue. Check access and terms before depositing.
Mitosis is the more relevant option if you are specifically interested in transferable LP positions, cross-chain settlement, or liquidity campaigns. Its chain coverage is broader, but TVL is far smaller, yield figures are not stated, and its technical and audit details are limited. Neither platform is an automatic choice for users who need transparent fees or guaranteed returns. Compare the specific route or vault you would use, including fees, eligibility, withdrawal conditions, and smart-contract risks.
Verdict: Concrete or Mitosis?
Choose Concrete if you want curated yield vaults, asset-specific options, and a substantially larger TVL. Its vault pages offer details such as curator and withdrawal token, but access may be permissioned, exits can be queued, and target APYs are not guarantees. Choose Mitosis if your priority is tokenized LP positions and cross-chain liquidity infrastructure across a wider list of chains. Its TVL is much smaller, and its fee, yield, and audit details are less specific. For either, check the exact vault or route and its costs before depositing.
Frequently asked questions
Which has more TVL?
Concrete has about $1.27 billion in TVL, compared with about $1.3 million for Mitosis. TVL alone does not establish safety or predict future returns.
Which supports more chains?
Mitosis lists support across twelve chains, while Concrete lists five. The projects use those networks differently: Concrete deploys vaults across chains, while Mitosis focuses on cross-chain settlement and tokenized liquidity positions.
Which is cheaper to use?
Neither project publishes a full fee schedule. Check the relevant app, vault details, documentation, and terms before depositing, and account for network gas fees.
Have Concrete and Mitosis been audited?
Both have two audits listed, but Mitosis does not publish the auditors’ names or findings in its project details. Concrete lists auditors by vault, and coverage varies; some vaults show no auditor.