Sablier Lockup vs Superfluid: Which Fits Your Payments? (2026)

Both protocols move tokens by the second, but they address different payment problems. Sablier Lockup is built around defined vesting: senders can set linear, cliff, monthly, discrete or timelock schedules, as well as custom curves. It also supports bulk stream creation and instant or vested Merkle airdrops, making it suited to contributor allocations, grants and token distributions. Recipients can withdraw vested funds without the sender's continued involvement.

Superfluid focuses on continuous transfers between addresses and programmable cashflows. Its use cases include salaries, grants, subscriptions, dollar-cost averaging and splitting income or rewards among many recipients. It also describes streaming behavior for any token. In short, Sablier is the more specialized choice for structured token unlocks, while Superfluid offers a broader building block for ongoing payment applications.

Neither protocol publishes specific fee amounts in these details, so you cannot compare exact platform costs from the information here. Sablier says plan options and fee splits are shown on its pricing page before use, but the percentages or amounts are not stated here. Superfluid does not publish a protocol or app fee schedule; charges from apps built on its protocol may differ, so check them before opening a stream.

Both also require users to pay the usual network gas costs. Those costs depend on the chain and activity, and Superfluid notes that Ethereum mainnet will usually cost more than layer-2 networks. Sablier describes batch distributions as gas-efficient, but actual costs still vary. Compare the relevant chain and any app-level charges before committing funds, rather than assuming either protocol is free or has a single fixed rate.

Both protocols rely on smart contracts, so audits lower risk but do not remove it. Two audits are listed for each. Sablier states its contracts are audited and unchangeable; it also cites an audit contest and five other auditors. The code is public, but its vesting streams are designed to be unchangeable, which makes careful setup important. Sablier also warns that each additional chain deployment increases the contract surface users rely on.

For Superfluid, auditor names, dates and audit scope are not published in these details. The protocol's streams carry risks from contract bugs, token-specific issues and insufficient balances. Neither project is described as having a reported incident here, but that is not a guarantee of safety. For either choice, verify the current contract and network, understand the stream settings, and review the relevant audit reports and risk notices before sending funds.

Pick Sablier Lockup if you need defined vesting schedules, cliffs, timelocks, bulk grants or airdrops, especially across many networks. Its ease-of-use score is higher, and recipients can withdraw vested balances themselves. The trade-off is that streams are built to be unchangeable, so mistakes in recipients or parameters may be difficult to reverse. Sablier has no native token.

Pick Superfluid if your goal is continuous payments or you are building an application around subscriptions, salaries, recurring rewards or income distribution. It has a larger listed TVL and SUP governance participation, but the streaming model may take more time to understand, and it supports fewer networks than Sablier's stated coverage. Both have unpublished exact fees and two audits listed. The deciding question is whether you need a vesting-and-airdrop tool or a programmable system for ongoing cashflows.