DeFiLoops and DeFi Saver do different things
The closest thing to a competitor we have, and on most measures it is ahead. Here is what each is actually built for, with the numbers.
In short: you want to automate a DeFi position, and DeFi Saver is the tool you have heard of. On most counts it is ahead: five chains against three, many more lending protocols, and ready-made liquidation protection that watches your position and adjusts it for you. In DeFiLoops you set up that protection yourself, as a price trigger. DeFiLoops fits better when a plan moves money between networks and repeats over time, since a DeFi Saver recipe is one transaction.
If you are automating DeFi positions today, DeFi Saver is probably the tool you have already heard of, and it is the closest thing to a competitor we have. It is also, on most of the measures people compare on, ahead of us.
This page is the comparison we would want if we were the one evaluating.
Where they are ahead, plainly
- Chains
- Five: Ethereum, Arbitrum, OP Mainnet, Base and Hyperliquid L1, against our three
- Lending protocols
- Aave v3/v4, Compound, Maker, Spark, Morpho, Fluid, Sky, Liquity, CurveUSD, LlamaLend, Euler v2, against our Aave v3, Aave v4 and Morpho
- Maturity
- Around $322m in total value locked, and an automation record through real mass-liquidation events
- Liquidation protection
- Automated 24/7 monitoring that adjusts a position when it approaches a dangerous ratio, ready-made. Ours is a workflow you set up yourself
Weigh that last row hardest. If what you want is a leveraged position that defends itself against liquidation, DeFi Saver is built for exactly that. It has been doing it for years, and real events have tested it, not just backtests.
One assumption we got wrong, and are correcting in public
Our first draft of this page argued that DeFi Saver has you assemble steps by hand while we compose from a sentence.
That is false. Their Recipe Creator supports natural language: you describe what you want and it prepares the recipe steps. We checked before publishing, which is the only reason this paragraph is an anecdote and not a false claim.
What is actually different
There are three, and they are narrower than a feature table suggests.
1. A recipe is one transaction; a plan can span chains and wait
A Recipe is a set of actions combined into a single transaction. That is a real strength (atomicity, no half-finished state), and it is also a boundary: a single transaction cannot contain a 15-minute wait.
Our plans are built around exactly that wait. A crossing means value leaves one chain, time passes, and value arrives on another, so a plan is a sequence of transactions with a gap in the middle, and the progress lives in a database so a run survives us shipping an update mid-flight.
DeFi Saver did not choose that boundary, and it is fair to say so on their behalf. Flow’s DeFiActions framework (a separate project, a different chain, a different language, and no competitor of ours) writes the same constraint into its own README: every component “execute[s] within single transactions, ensuring that complex multi-step financial operations either complete entirely or fail safely without partial execution.”
When two unrelated designs draw the same line, the line comes from what a transaction is; neither team settled for it. That is also why the alternative has a cost: to hold a 15-minute wait you give up atomicity, and then you owe the reader an honest account of what a half-finished plan looks like.
Atomic: all of it happens or none does. Cannot contain a wait, so it lives on one chain.
Spans chains, with the crossing’s wait built in. Not atomic end to end: it breaks into transactions, and the board shows you where before you approve.
Neither is better. They answer different questions, and if your strategy fits in one transaction the atomic version is the better tool.
2. Automation on a condition, against a schedule that re-prices
Their automation fires when an on-chain condition is met, such as a health factor crossing a threshold. That is the right shape for protection.
Ours fires on a clock, a price, or another workflow finishing, and rebuilds the plan each time. A schedule set up in March does not carry March’s prices into June. That is the right shape for a recurring strategy. It is also how liquidation defence works here: you choose the price, and what happens when it is reached: lever down, repay part of the loan, or close. Nothing is set up for you, which a monitor built for the job would do.
3. The half that spends nothing
Five of our fifty-two tools move money. The other forty-seven only read: what a price range would have collected day by day, how seventeen ways of managing it would have performed, what nine option structures cost today and at every roll since 2021, what perpetuals pay across four venues.
That is research, not execution, and a position manager has nothing like it.
Fees, carefully
These are not directly comparable, and presenting them as a single number would be sloppy.
- DeFi Saver
- 0.25% on advanced actions, plus 0.05% when those actions are automated. Standard supply, withdraw, borrow and repay are free
- DeFiLoops
- 0.1% on a swap’s output, 0.1% on an amount sent between chains, and a markup on the gas bill charged in credits. There is no cut of what a step moves
The fees apply to different bases, actions and chains. To compare honestly, price your actual strategy on both instead of comparing the percentages.
Which to use
- Pick DeFi Saver if you want a position that defends itself
Ready-made liquidation protection, on more chains and far more lending protocols, from a product with a real track record through liquidation events.
- Pick DeFi Saver if your strategy fits one transaction
Atomicity is a genuine property and a recipe gives it to you.
- Pick us if the strategy crosses chains and recurs
Plans built around the crossing’s wait, re-priced every time they fire, that survive a restart mid-run.
- Pick us if you want to measure before you commit
The read-only half is most of what we are, and it is free to use.
There is a fifth option: use both. Holding a position managed by one does not stop you running a strategy through the other.