Kelp vs Renzo: TVL, chains and bridge risk (2026)

Both protocols let users deposit ETH or supported liquid staking tokens and receive a tradable token representing a restaked position. Kelp issues rsETH, while Renzo offers liquid restaking through its EigenLayer-focused platform. Their scale and breadth differ: Kelp has about $910 million in listed TVL, while Renzo has about $109 million. Renzo is listed on 13 chains; Kelp is listed on Ethereum, and it has announced that rsETH bridging will stop on 20 networks. Kelp’s homepage has described integrations across lending protocols, DEXs and wallets, but its cited liquidity claim predates the exploit. Renzo’s product range includes a Staking Suite, Reserve Vaults and an Enterprise Suite, although details for some newer products are limited. Choose based on the specific asset, chain and product you intend to use, not TVL alone.

Neither protocol publishes specific fee rates in the information here. Kelp’s fee structure is not stated, and its homepage calculator does not provide captured live values. Renzo’s product fees are also not published, so there is no reliable basis for saying which is cheaper. Before depositing, check the relevant app and official documentation for any charge on staking, restaking, vault use or rewards. Your total cost can also include network gas and, if you exit by swapping rather than redeeming, market fees and slippage. These costs depend on the chain and transaction, so they cannot be compared as fixed amounts here. Do not treat displayed APR or APY as a net return unless you have confirmed which fees and other costs it includes.

Kelp lists two audits and advertises a bug bounty of up to $250,000. Those measures do not erase the risk highlighted by its April 18, 2026 rsETH bridge exploit, reported at roughly $290 million. Responsibility is disputed: Kelp blamed LayerZero default settings, while others criticized Kelp’s configuration. Aave froze rsETH markets after the incident, and Kelp said it would stop bridging on 20 networks. Users should follow official communications about recovery and compensation, whose plans are not described publicly here. Renzo also lists two audits, and its documentation links to public smart-contract code, but it has not published the audit scope or dates here. Restaking carries smart-contract and slashing risk; liquid tokens can also trade below the value of their underlying assets. Renzo’s ezETH did so during heavy selling in April 2024.

Renzo is the clearer fit if you want a choice of listed chains or are comparing its retail staking, vault and enterprise-oriented products. Its broader reach does not mean every product is equally documented: details for Reserve Vaults and the Enterprise Suite are limited, so check the strategy and terms before using them. Kelp may appeal if you value its larger listed TVL, rsETH integrations and longer operating history, which dates to December 2023. But those points need to be weighed against the bridge exploit, disputed responsibility and announced reduction in bridging. Its KERNEL token is listed, but token utility details are not public. In either case, compare the exact redemption route and token you will hold; a liquid restaking token may not always sell for the value of its underlying position.