Magma vs Pact: Sui liquidity or Algorand tools? (2026)

Magma and Pact serve different ecosystems, so the first decision is which chain you use. Magma is a Sui AMM centered on concentrated liquidity, where liquidity providers set a price range for their capital. Pact is an Algorand AMM with a swap aggregator that can route trades across Algorand DEXs, including competitors. Its pool options include concentrated, traditional AMM and stable-swap pools.

Pact has the larger feature set described here: it also offers farms, portfolio tracking, analytics and a developer SDK. Magma’s focus is narrower, with its design aimed at Sui and MOVE-based chains. The listed TVL is about $1.96 million for Magma and $902,000 for Pact, but neither figure guarantees depth for a specific token pair or trade. Check the relevant pool before placing a large swap.

Neither DEX publishes exact swap fee percentages in the information described here. Magma’s fee tiers, protocol fees and liquidity-provider reward rates are not published. Pact says its pools have multiple fee tiers, but it does not state the percentages; its general low-fee claim is not a specific price. Pact’s aggregator also has no published fee figure here.

Both charge their chain’s network fees: SUI for Magma transactions and Algorand network fees for Pact transactions. These are separate from pool or swap fees. Price impact matters too: both protocols have modest TVL, and large trades in thin pools can execute at a worse price. Before confirming, review the transaction details and expected output in the app. For liquidity provision, check the pool’s terms and incentives rather than assuming that a fee tier or farm reward will make a position profitable.

Both protocols have two audits listed, but neither names the auditors or summarizes the scope and findings here. An audit can help identify contract issues, but it does not remove smart-contract risk or guarantee that a protocol cannot be exploited. Neither has a hack or incident mentioned in the information described here, and neither has a stated regulatory status.

Both are non-custodial: you connect your wallet and retain control of your keys, but transactions and liquidity deposits still expose you to contract and market risks. Providing liquidity can lead to impermanent loss, while small pools can bring price impact and token volatility. Magma has a shorter track record, with tracking beginning in February 2025; Pact has been tracked since 2022. Those dates do not establish safety. For either DEX, verify the app and token details carefully before connecting a wallet or approving a transaction.

Pact is the more feature-rich option. Its aggregator seeks execution across Algorand DEXs, and its pool choices include traditional AMM and stable-swap pools as well as concentrated liquidity. It also supports LP-token staking in existing incentive programs and lets users create reward programs. Dashboard, analytics and portfolio tools keep position information in the interface. Concentrated-liquidity pools are described as being in testing, so do not treat that feature as established.

Magma is better defined by its concentrated-liquidity focus on Sui. Its AMM model uses pools rather than an order book, and the protocol has a MAGMA token. Its two listed audits are a useful item to investigate, but their auditors are not named here. For both projects, published details about fees and incentives are limited, so confirm the current terms in the app rather than relying on an assumed cost or yield.

Choose Magma if you use Sui and want a DEX built around concentrated liquidity. Its listed TVL is higher than Pact’s, but it is still modest, so check the depth and expected slippage for your pair. Be prepared to manage a concentrated-liquidity position and account for impermanent loss if you provide liquidity.

Choose Pact if you use Algorand and value an aggregator, several pool types, farms and built-in analytics. Its longer track record and broader toolkit may suit users who want more than a basic swap, though its liquidity is also modest and its concentrated pools are still described as testing. Neither is a clear choice for users who need published fee schedules or named audit findings. Compare the transaction details and pool conditions before committing funds.