Uniswap V3 vs Uniswap V4: AMM Architecture
Uniswap V4's key architectural changes from V3 are the hook system and singleton contract — representing the largest expansion of AMM programmability since concentrated liquidity.
Comparison
| Aspect | Uniswap V3 | Uniswap V4 |
|---|---|---|
| Contract architecture | One contract per pool; multi-hop trades call multiple contracts | Singleton: all pools managed by single contract; multi-hop = single interaction |
| Gas: multi-hop swap | Higher: each hop is a separate contract call + transfer | Lower: single contract interaction; no per-pool transfer overhead |
| Pool customization | Fixed: fee tier (1bp/5bp/30bp) + tick spacing | Hooks: arbitrary logic at swap/LP/donate lifecycle points |
| Dynamic fees | Static fee per pool; no volatility-based adjustment | Hook-programmable: fees can adjust to volatility, volume, or oracle data |
| LP position management | Manual: LP must rebalance ranges when price moves | Hook-automated: hooks can auto-rebalance, compound fees, or relay to lending |
| MEV internalization | Not natively supported | Hooks can capture arbitrage profits and return to LPs |
| Custom order types | Limited to range orders (V3-specific limit order equivalent) | Hooks enable TWAP orders, stop-loss, and other complex order types |
| Risk surface | Per-pool risk isolation: bug in one pool doesn't affect others | Singleton concentrates TVL; a hook bug could affect all pools using that hook |
Analysis
V4's hooks and singleton are a generational leap in AMM programmability but introduce new risk vectors. V3's battle-tested per-pool isolation remains the safer choice for simple use cases.