Uniswap AMM Asset Manager
Compare Uniswap V2 and V3 liquidity positions with comprehensive analytics, risk assessment, and performance tracking.
Educational simulation only. No real assets, liquidity, or financial transactions.
Uniswap V2 Positions
Traditional 50/50 AMM pools with full-range liquidity
Total Value
$171.80K
Fees Earned
$4.30K
Avg APY
24.9%
Avg IL
-2.8%
Active V2 Positions
How Uniswap V2 Works
Uniswap V2 uses a constant product market maker (x * y = k) formula. Liquidity is spread evenly across the entire price curve from 0 to infinity. This means your capital is always active, but with lower capital efficiency compared to V3's concentrated liquidity.
Uniswap V3 Positions
Concentrated liquidity positions with custom price ranges
Total Value
$364.30K
Fees Earned
$11.68K
Avg APY
39.8%
Capital Efficiency
8.0x
In Range
4/4
Active V3 Positions
How Uniswap V3 Works
Uniswap V3 introduces concentrated liquidity, allowing you to provide liquidity within custom price ranges. This increases capital efficiency (you earn more fees with less capital) but requires active management. If the price moves outside your range, you stop earning fees until it returns or you rebalance.
Which Protocol is Right for You?
Answer a few questions to get a personalized recommendation based on your risk tolerance, time commitment, and capital availability.
Quick Start Scenarios
Select a profile to see how different investor types map to protocol recommendations
Your Profile
How comfortable are you with potential impermanent loss and price volatility?
How much time can you dedicate to monitoring and rebalancing positions?
How much capital do you plan to deploy for liquidity provision?
Compatibility Scores
Recommended Protocol
Confidence Level
Why This Recommendation?
Simpler strategy ideal for learning
How This Tool Works
This recommendation engine analyzes your inputs to suggest the most suitable Uniswap protocol. V2 is recommended for passive investors seeking simplicity, while V3 is suggested for active managers who can leverage concentrated liquidity for higher returns. The algorithm weighs risk tolerance, time availability, and capital size to provide personalized guidance.
V2 Profile
V2V3 Profile
V3Quick Comparison
V2 vs V3 Performance Comparison
Compare returns, capital efficiency, and key differences between Uniswap V2 and V3 liquidity provision strategies
Uniswap V2
Traditional full-range liquidity
Set and forget - minimal management required
Always earning fees across all price ranges
Lower risk of position going out of range
Simpler strategy for beginners
Uniswap V3
Concentrated liquidity positions
Higher capital efficiency (up to 4000x)
Earn more fees with less capital deployed
Customizable fee tiers for different volatility
Better for focused market-making strategies
Performance Metrics Comparison
Sample DataTotal Portfolio Value
V2
$170.10K
V3
$364.30K
Total Fees Collected
V2
$4.30K
V3
$11.68K
Average APY
V2
24.9%
V3
39.8%
Capital Efficiency
V2
1.0x
V3
8.0x
Average Impermanent Loss
V2
2.8%
V3
1.9%
Performance Analysis
Total Returns
Capital Efficiency Multiplier
APY Distribution
Feature Comparison Matrix
| Feature | V2 | V3 |
|---|---|---|
| Liquidity Range | Full Range |
Custom Range
|
| Capital Efficiency | 1x |
Up to 4000x
|
| Fee Tiers | 0.3% Fixed |
Multiple Tiers
|
| Management Required |
Passive
|
Active Required |
| Gas Optimization | Standard |
Optimized
|
| Best For | Beginners | Advanced Users |
When to Use Uniswap V2
V2 is ideal for passive liquidity providers who prefer a set-and-forget approach. Best for stable pairs, lower volatility tokens, or when you want continuous fee generation without active management. Lower capital efficiency but simpler strategy.
When to Use Uniswap V3
V3 excels when you can actively manage positions and predict price ranges. Best for experienced LPs, high-volume pairs, or when you want to maximize capital efficiency. Requires monitoring and rebalancing but offers significantly higher returns per dollar deployed.