Uniswap vs Curve Finance: AMM Design
Uniswap and Curve represent the two dominant AMM design paradigms — one optimized for generality, the other for pegged assets. Uniswap's constant product and concentrated liquidity models work for any token pair. Curve's Stableswap invariant achieves near-zero slippage for price-stable assets at the cost of pool-drain risk if the peg breaks.
Comparison
| Aspect | Uniswap | Curve Finance |
|---|---|---|
| Invariant | Constant product (x·y=k); concentrated liquidity within ticks | Stableswap (hybrid constant sum / constant product) |
| Best for | Volatile pairs, general-purpose token swaps | Stablecoins, LST pairs, pegged assets |
| Slippage on $1M stable swap | ~0.5% on volatile pools | ~0.01% near the peg |
| Capital efficiency | V3 concentrated liquidity: 4000x over V2 in tight ranges | Very high near peg; drops sharply at curve extremes |
| Primary LP risk | Impermanent loss proportional to price divergence | Peg-deviation risk; pool can drain if peg permanently breaks |
| Fee model | Tiered (1bp, 5bp, 30bp) per pool; V4 hooks enable dynamic fees | Low flat fee (~0.04%) optimized for high-volume stable pairs |
| Customizability | V4 hooks: fully programmable pool logic at lifecycle points | Factory pools with configurable amplification (A) and fee parameters |
| Market share | Largest DEX by total volume on Ethereum mainnet | Dominates stablecoin-to-stablecoin swap volume in DeFi |
Analysis
Aggregators route stablecoin trades through Curve for tight pricing and volatile trades through Uniswap for deeper liquidity. V4 hooks may let Uniswap replicate Curve-like concentrated invariants, blurring the distinction.