At a glance
Renzo ↗ and Puffer Finance ↗ are both liquid restaking protocols (LRTs) launched in 2024. Renzo’s ezETH token is live on 7 chains with $1.2B in TVL, while Puffer’s pufETH, secured by its anti-slashing Secure-Signer, sits at $0.5B across Ethereum and its own Puffer UniFi rollup. Renzo prioritizes multi-chain liquidity and operator/AVS management; Puffer focuses on validator safety and Ethereum alignment via UniFi sequencer revenue. Choose Renzo for broad DeFi composability, Puffer for a safety-first restaking experience.
Key differences
TVL and adoption. Renzo holds $1.2B TVL versus Puffer’s $0.5B. This gap reflects Renzo’s early traction and deeper integration across lending markets like Aave ↗ and Morpho Blue ↗.
Chain support. Renzo is deployed on 7 chains: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Linea, BNB, Base, Mode, and Blast. Puffer is limited to Ethereum and its own Puffer UniFi rollup. Renzo’s broad chain presence enables ezETH to interact with a wider range of DeFi protocols.
Core technology. Renzo manages operator selection and AVS allocations on behalf of users, optimizing yields through EigenLayer ↗. Puffer integrates a Secure-Signer to prevent slashable offenses, a unique validator-protection layer absent from most LRTs.
Rollup strategy. Puffer UniFi is a based rollup that returns sequencer revenue to the Ethereum community. Renzo instead leverages Connext and Hyperlane for cross-chain ezETH transfers without a proprietary rollup.
Audits. Renzo was audited by Halborn and Sigma Prime. Puffer underwent three audits: Quantstamp, Spearbit, and Nethermind. While both sets are reputable, Puffer’s triple audit provides additional scrutiny.
Security and track record
Both protocols launched in 2024 and have not suffered any public exploits or notable incidents. Puffer’s anti-slashing Secure-Signer directly mitigates validator penalties, a risk inherent to restaking. Renzo’s approach relies on operator curation and economic incentives. In terms of code assurance, Puffer’s three-audit lineup (Quantstamp, Spearbit, Nethermind) is more extensive than Renzo’s two (Halborn, Sigma Prime). Neither has a long operational history, so both remain relatively untested in extreme market conditions.
Fees and costs
Neither protocol’s fee structure is disclosed in our data. Renzo likely charges a performance fee on staking rewards and a cut of AVS yields. Puffer may embed fees within its Secure-Signer operations or UniFi revenue share. For exact fee schedules, consult each protocol’s official documentation.
Which should you choose
Choose Renzo if you value deeper liquidity, multi-chain flexibility (Arbitrum, Base, Linea, etc.), and seamless integration with existing DeFi primitives. Its $1.2B TVL and broad chain footprint make ezETH a convenient LRT for yield strategies across ecosystems.
Choose Puffer if you prioritize validator safety and want protection against slashing risk. The Secure-Signer hardware/software enforcer adds a layer of defense that standard LRTs lack. Additionally, Puffer UniFi’s based rollup offers potential upside from sequencer revenue, appealing to those who want more direct Ethereum alignment.
Verdict
Context-dependent. Renzo wins on TVL, chain count, and DeFi integrations, making it the default LRT for most users. Puffer’s anti-slashing innovation and UniFi rollup carve a distinct niche for security-conscious restakers. The decision hinges on whether you prioritize broad adoption or technical safety features.