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 $0.09B in TVL, while Puffer’s pufETH, secured by its anti-slashing Secure-Signer, sits at $0.05B 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 $0.09B TVL versus Puffer’s $0.05B. 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 underwent three audits: Halborn, Sigma Prime, and Code4rena. Puffer underwent three audits: Quantstamp, Spearbit, and Nethermind. Both sets are reputable and provide comparable scrutiny.
Security and track record
Both protocols launched in 2024. Puffer has no publicly known exploit; Renzo’s one notable incident was the April 2024 ezETH depeg, when the token briefly lost its peg amid airdrop-driven selling and triggered leveraged liquidations. 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, both field three audits — Puffer (Quantstamp, Spearbit, Nethermind) and Renzo (Halborn, Sigma Prime, Code4rena). 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 $0.09B 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.