Skip to content

DappsAtlas index · 14,224 dApps

DappsAtlas

Comparison · Updated

Gearbox vs Save: leveraged credit or simpler lending? (2026)

Gearbox is the better fit for experienced users seeking leveraged, multi-chain credit; Save suits users looking for more familiar lending and borrowing on Solana. Neither publishes a full fee schedule.

Illustration for Gearbox vs Save: leveraged credit or simpler lending? (2026)
Gearbox logo

Gearbox

Lending

Score 7.4 out of 10

TVL $22.1M · 11 chains

Save logo

Save

Lending

Score 6.8 out of 10

TVL $71.1M · 2 chains

Side by side

Gearbox vs Save at a glance

Gearbox and Save compared
 GearboxSave
CategoryLending and credit protocolLending and borrowing protocol
ChainsEthereum, Etherlink, Monad, Plasma, Hemi, Arbitrum, Optimism, Somnia, Sonic, BNB Chain and LiskSolana and Eclipse
TVLAbout $24.1MAbout $76.2M
TokenGEARSAVE
Borrowing modelIsolated credit accounts; up to 10x leverage across supported DeFi protocolsAsset deposits, separate pools and collateralized borrowing; maximum leverage not published
Fees and ratesBorrowers pay interest; exact rates and fees vary by market and are not published as a fee scheduleDeposit and borrow APRs shown by asset; fees are not published
Security and auditsTwo audits listed; Gearbox claims 30+ audits, a live bug bounty and over $3M spent on securityTwo audits listed; audit details are not public
Ease of useBest suited to experienced DeFi users; isolated accounts have configurable rulesFamiliar deposit-and-borrow interface with separate pools
Standout featuresComplex collateral and compliance controls for tokenised assetssaveSOL liquid staking, permissionless liquidations and pool outflow limits
Best forExperienced DeFi users and institutions seeking multi-chain leveraged creditUsers seeking lending and borrowing markets focused on Solana

How Gearbox and Save differ

Both protocols let users lend assets and borrow, but their core products are different. Gearbox centers on isolated credit accounts that can use leverage across supported DeFi protocols. Its stated maximum is 10x, and its account controls include token whitelists, transfer rules, role policies and per-user risk limits. Gearbox also supports collateral such as LP tokens, vault shares and PTs, and is building credit features for tokenised assets.

Save is closer to a conventional money market. Users deposit assets into pools, can use deposits as collateral to borrow other assets, and see APRs and risk parameters by asset. Its dashboard also separates pools and includes saveSOL liquid staking. In short, Gearbox offers more composable credit and more complexity; Save offers a more familiar pool-based lending setup.

Fees and lending rates

Neither protocol publishes a complete fee schedule. Gearbox borrowers pay interest on debt, but exact rates, protocol fees and liquidation penalties are not stated as fixed public figures. Current borrow rates and market-specific fees appear in its app and documentation. Lenders earn yield from borrower interest, and Gearbox cites up to 14% APY for its Long-Term Savings product; that is a cited maximum, not a guaranteed return. Users also pay gas on the network they use.

Save does not publish its fees either. Its dashboard displays deposit APR and borrow APR for each asset, so rates depend on the asset and pool. Potential protocol fees, including any share of interest or liquidation penalties, should be checked in its documentation and Revenue page. Solana transaction fees also apply. Compare the live rates and terms for the exact market before depositing or borrowing; headline yields alone do not show the full cost or risk.

Security and risks

Both protocols carry smart-contract and market risk, and borrowing adds liquidation risk. Gearbox says it has been live since 2021 with no breaches or incidents, has spent over $3M on security, operates a live bug bounty and has had more than 30 audits. These are project claims; two audits are listed, and audit reports and an independent incident history are not included here. Leverage magnifies losses, while composable collateral such as LP tokens and vault shares adds risks from underlying contracts and markets. Tokenised-asset products can also involve issuer and legal-enforcement risks.

Save has two audits listed, but audit details are not public. Its on-chain pools face smart-contract, oracle and market risks. Borrowers can be liquidated when collateral values fall, and pool conditions matter. A public forum post alleges losses in one pool; this is unverified and should not be treated as established fact. Save shows pool outflow limits, but these do not remove the possibility of losses.

Chains and user experience

Gearbox spans eleven listed networks, including Ethereum, Arbitrum and Optimism. That breadth may suit users who want access to credit across multiple ecosystems, but markets and risk parameters can differ by chain. Its isolated accounts and controls offer flexibility, though the range of features and leverage makes it a more demanding product. The protocol describes itself as suited to experienced DeFi users and institutions, rather than beginners. Tokenised-asset and prime-brokerage products may be limited to approved or identified participants.

Save lists Solana and Eclipse, so its chain choice is much narrower. Its dashboard shows pools, asset tables, deposit APRs, borrow APRs and LTV information, making the basic lending and borrowing workflow easier to assess. Save also includes a liquid staking product, rewards and security sections. Its TVL is about $76.2M compared with Gearbox's about $24.1M, but TVL alone does not establish safety or suitability.

Which protocol should you choose?

Choose Gearbox if you understand DeFi leverage and want isolated credit accounts, access across a broad set of chains, or support for complex collateral. Its tokenised-asset controls and prime-brokerage product may also be relevant to institutions and approved participants. Take care with the stated 10x maximum: leverage can magnify losses and lead to liquidation, and Gearbox's rates and market parameters need checking before use.

Choose Save if you want a more conventional lending-market experience centered on Solana, with separate pools, collateralized borrowing and asset-level APRs. Its saveSOL product may be useful if liquid staking is part of your needs. Neither choice is risk-free, and neither publishes a full fee schedule. Compare the specific pool or market, collateral rules and current rates before committing funds.

Verdict: Gearbox or Save?

Pick Gearbox if you are an experienced DeFi user who wants isolated credit accounts, leverage across supported protocols, or access across a wide range of chains. Its complex collateral and tokenised-asset controls offer more flexibility, but leverage and composable assets add risk, and exact fees are not published. Pick Save if you want a more familiar deposit-and-borrow setup focused on Solana, with separate pools and asset-level APRs. Save has the higher stated TVL, but that does not make it safer. Check current pool or market terms, risks and rates before using either protocol.

Frequently asked questions

Which protocol offers leverage?

Gearbox offers credit accounts with up to 10x leverage across supported DeFi protocols. Save offers collateralized borrowing, but its maximum leverage is not published.

Are Gearbox and Save fees published?

Neither publishes a full fee schedule. Gearbox borrowers pay interest, with current rates and market-specific fees shown in its app and documentation; Save displays deposit and borrow APRs by asset on its dashboard.

Which chains do they support?

Gearbox lists eleven networks, including Ethereum, Arbitrum and Optimism. Save lists Solana and Eclipse.

Which is better for a beginner?

Gearbox is aimed at experienced DeFi users and offers complex leveraged credit and tokenised-asset features. Save is the more straightforward choice for depositing assets or borrowing against collateral in separate pools.