Gauntlet vs KPK: Which DeFi Risk Curator Fits? (2026)

Both platforms curate non-custodial DeFi strategies, but their profiles differ. Gauntlet is the larger of the two by listed TVL, at about $1.54 billion versus KPK’s about $217 million, and lists 14 chains compared with KPK’s 11. Its review describes risk-management work dating to 2018 and highlights distribution through fintechs, exchanges and asset managers.

KPK’s stated DeFi operating history dates to 2020. Its product range includes tokenised onchain funds and bespoke treasury mandates alongside curated vaults, making it more explicitly positioned for organisations managing capital. KPK also lists a token and two audits, while Gauntlet lists no token and no audits. These differences are useful for screening, but TVL and audit counts alone do not establish which strategy is safer or more suitable.

Gauntlet’s core offering is curated vaults that lend, restake or allocate across multiple strategies, with rebalancing across markets, protocols and chains. It also offers embedded Earn programs for partner apps, custom strategies around particular assets, and Aera vault infrastructure. Its research, VaultBook documentation and risk dashboards give users materials to examine the strategies and risks.

KPK combines curated yield vaults with tokenised funds that spread capital across protocols and chains, plus treasury mandates for DAOs and organisations. Its review also describes policy-bound AI agents that monitor markets and execute onchain, and Covered Vaults as a protection feature. KPK provides public treasury reporting and analytics. Public sources do not explain the exact coverage terms for Covered Vaults or the limits and performance of the AI agents, so users should review the product-specific documentation rather than assume a particular outcome.

Neither of our reviews publishes general fee schedules. Gauntlet’s published information does not set out management or performance fees, and KPK does not state management, performance, deposit or withdrawal costs for its vaults, funds or mandates. Those terms may vary by product, so check the specific vault or fund details and documentation before depositing.

There is one specific gas-fee statement for Gauntlet: users of at least one integration, KAST Earn, are described as paying no gas fees. That does not establish that every Gauntlet product or integration is gas-free. KPK’s review notes that onchain transactions incur network gas costs on the chosen chain. Compare the full cost of the specific product, including transaction costs, before choosing; public sources are not enough to calculate which platform will be cheaper.

Both platforms describe non-custodial products, but non-custodial does not mean risk-free. Gauntlet’s published data lists no audits. Its site names Hypernative, Zeroshadow and Chainalysis in a monitoring and response stack, but monitoring is not a substitute for independent code audits. The review also flags curator decisions, smart contracts, underlying protocols, depegs and liquidity stress as risks.

KPK has two audits listed, but public sources do not identify the auditors or describe the audit scope. Its vaults and funds can still be affected by failures, exploits or depegs in underlying protocols. KPK’s automated execution also carries model and execution risk, even though it is described as operating within a defined risk framework. For either service, look for reports covering the exact contracts and strategy you intend to use. Yields are not guaranteed, and neither audit counts nor monitoring arrangements eliminate the possibility of losses.

Choose Gauntlet if you value its longer stated risk-management history, higher listed TVL, broader listed chain coverage, or integrations that put curated yield inside partner apps. Its research and risk dashboards may also suit users who want material to review before selecting a strategy. The trade-off is that no audits are listed, and vault fees are not published.

Choose KPK if tokenised funds, treasury mandates or its Covered Vaults are closer to what you need, or if having two audits listed matters to your initial comparison. KPK’s audit scope and fees still need product-level checking, and AI-driven execution introduces an additional risk to assess. For an individual depositor, compare the actual vaults available on your chain, their underlying protocols, terms and documentation. Neither platform is an automatic safer choice for every strategy.