ICHI vs Snuggle: fees, chains and liquidity tools (2026)

Both projects manage concentrated-liquidity positions, but their main differences are deposit flexibility, chain reach and how rebalancing works. ICHI vaults accept a single token and deploy funds into Uniswap V3-style pools, with automated strategies managing ranges. Its 26 listed chains make it the broader option for users who want to choose among many networks.

Snuggle focuses on Base and Arbitrum pools across five DEX integrations. Its distinctive approach repositions positions using the tokens already held, without swapping during rebalancing. It also reinvests trading fees and offers strategy presets. Snuggle lists Robinhood Chain as a supported chain as well, but its described pools and DEX integrations are on Base and Arbitrum. Choose based on where your intended pool is available and whether single-token deposits or zero-swap rebalancing matters more.

Snuggle states a 15% protocol fee on earnings, meaning users keep 85% of what the position earns. It says there is no fee per rebalance and that rebalancing avoids swap fees and slippage. That gives users a straightforward stated protocol charge, but network gas still applies, and the exact amount varies. Underlying DEX pool fees are earned by the position.

ICHI does not publish fee details such as performance or management fees. Depositors earn trading fees from the underlying pool, but any protocol cut is not specified; check the vault page and documentation before depositing. Gas costs also apply. Neither project provides a guaranteed return, and trading-fee income can vary with pool activity and price movements. Compare the actual vault terms and expected costs for your chosen chain rather than treating a backtest or advertised fee structure as a promise of profit.

Both projects involve smart-contract and market risks. ICHI describes its design as non-custodial and names Quantstamp, Solidified, Certik, Pashov Audit Group, Bail Security and FYEO; 2 audits are listed. Snuggle names Valves Security and says independent researchers and white hat groups also reviewed it; 2 audits are listed. Neither publishes audit dates, scopes or findings in the details here, so inspect the reports rather than relying on the number of audits alone.

ICHI’s longer operating history is a useful distinction, but it does not remove contract risk. Snuggle is newer, and its TVL fell 26.4% over seven days in the reported data; ICHI’s fell 5.3%. Both strategies can expose depositors to impermanent loss and token price changes. Snuggle positions can also end up concentrated in one asset. Do not deposit funds you cannot afford to lose.

ICHI suits users who want to deposit one token, prefer an automated vault to manual range management, or need access to a wider selection of chains. Its listed TVL is about $5.9 million, and its operating history dates to late 2021. The main drawback is that its fees are not published, so users need to confirm vault terms before committing funds.

Snuggle is the more specific fit for users who want pools on Base or Arbitrum, zero-swap rebalancing, and a stated performance fee. Its listed TVL is about $9.2 million, but it has a shorter operating history. Its 42–178% headline return claims are backtests, not realized or guaranteed results. Its ease-of-use score is slightly higher, but that should not outweigh the fee, pool and risk differences. For broader chain choice and single-token deposits, choose ICHI; for Snuggle’s particular rebalancing model, choose Snuggle only if its fee and risks fit your plan.