Current vs Save: Sui Yield or Solana Lending? (2026)

Both protocols offer lending, but they target different users and ecosystems. Current is built on Sui and emphasizes isolated lending markets, one-click yield multiplication and tokenized real-economy yield. Isolation is intended to limit how far a problem in one market spreads; multiplying yield can increase exposure through borrowing, so it also brings leverage and liquidation risk. Save, formerly Solend, is a longer-running money market on Solana and Eclipse. It offers deposits, collateralized borrowing and multiple pools, plus saveSOL liquid staking. Its interface also shows pool-level outflow limits and permissionless liquidations. Save has the larger TVL, about $76.2 million versus Current’s $56.7 million, but TVL alone does not establish safety or suitability.

Neither of our reviews provides a complete fee schedule, protocol take rate or interest-rate model. Current’s borrow and supply rates, any protocol cut, and costs for its multiply feature are not published. It says users should check the app for live rates and fees before confirming a position. Save displays deposit APR and borrow APR for each asset on its dashboard, but public sources do not give fixed values or a full account of protocol fees, interest shares or liquidation penalties. Those details need to be checked in Save’s documentation and revenue information. Both protocols also require users to pay their chain’s transaction costs: Sui gas for Current and Solana network fees for Save. Compare the live terms for the specific asset and pool you plan to use rather than assuming one protocol is cheaper.

Both protocols have two audits listed, but public sources do not identify the auditors or provide audit dates and findings. That leaves important details unverified, and an audit does not remove smart-contract, oracle or market risk. Current is new and has little operating history. Its leveraged multiply feature adds liquidation risk, while tokenized real-world yield depends on off-chain issuers and counterparties as well as on-chain code. Save also carries smart-contract and oracle risk, and borrowers can be liquidated when collateral values fall. One user post in public reporting alleges losses in a specific Save pool and calls the project a scam; this is an unverified claim, not an established finding. It does underscore the need to assess pools individually. Save’s visible outflow limits are a risk control, not a guarantee against losses. Neither should be treated as risk-free.

Choose Current if you specifically want to use Sui, value isolated lending markets, or are interested in its focus on tokenized real-economy yield. Its one-click multiply feature is aimed at users who understand leveraged positions and their liquidation risks. Current’s short history, limited published details and single-chain focus make it a less established option. Choose Save if you want a longer-running lending and borrowing protocol with multiple pools on Solana and Eclipse, or want access to saveSOL liquid staking. Its dashboard displays asset APRs, and the protocol lists pool controls such as outflow limits. Those features do not make it risk-free, and pool-level risks still matter. If your main deciding factor is fees or independently assessable audit coverage, neither of our reviews provides enough detail to settle the choice; check each protocol’s current terms and security information first.