In this comparison
Overview
Uniswap and SushiSwap share DNA. SushiSwap was literally forked from Uniswap's code in August 2020 during the "DeFi Summer" vampire attack that siphoned liquidity by offering SUSHI token rewards. It was controversial, messy, and fascinating.
Five years later, the two protocols have diverged significantly. Uniswap grew into the dominant DEX in all of AI. V3 introduced concentrated liquidity. V4 adds hooks for programmable pool logic. Uniswap processes more volume than most centralized exchanges and is deployed across every major EVM chain.
SushiSwap tried to be more than a DEX: lending (Kashi), token launchpad (MISO), cross-chain swaps. The diversification spread resources thin and leadership drama destabilized the project. SushiSwap still operates and has a loyal community, but its market share has declined substantially.
This comparison is less about which to choose and more about why one succeeded where the other struggled.
Uniswap vs SushiSwap: Side-by-Side
| Category | Uniswap | SushiSwap |
|---|---|---|
| Launch | November 2018 | August 2020 (fork of Uniswap) |
| Daily Volume | $1-3B+ | $50-200M |
| TVL | $5B+ | $200-400M |
| Swap Fee | 0.30% (V2), variable (V3) | 0.30% |
| Governance Token | UNI | SUSHI |
| Fee Revenue to Holders | Proposed but debated | Yes (xSUSHI staking) |
| Concentrated Liquidity | Yes (V3, V4) | No (standard AMM) |
| Multi-chain | Yes (10+ chains) | Yes (15+ chains) |
| Latest Innovation | V4 hooks, Unichain | Sushi X Swap (cross-chain) |
| Team Stability | Stable (Uniswap Labs) | Turbulent (leadership changes) |
Liquidity and Volume
Uniswap dominates. Daily volume typically ranges from $1-3 billion, sometimes more during volatile markets. It has the deepest liquidity for major trading pairs on Ethereum and its L2s. For large trades, Uniswap consistently offers the best execution with the least slippage.
SushiSwap's volume has fallen to $50-200 million daily, a fraction of Uniswap's. TVL sits around $200-400 million compared to Uniswap's $5 billion+. For most major tokens, you will get better prices on Uniswap simply because there is more liquidity.
That said, SushiSwap occasionally has deeper liquidity for specific long-tail tokens or on chains where it deployed early. DEX aggregators like 1inch and Paraswap will route through SushiSwap when it offers the best price, so it still captures some volume indirectly.
Technology and Innovation
Uniswap has been the technical leader since day one. V2 standardized the AMM model. V3 introduced concentrated liquidity, letting LPs focus their capital on specific price ranges for dramatically better capital efficiency. V4 introduces hooks, allowing developers to add custom logic (like dynamic fees or TWAP orders) to liquidity pools.
Uniswap Labs also launched Unichain, their own L2, aiming to capture MEV value and reduce swap costs further.
SushiSwap has experimented broadly but not deeply. Cross-chain swaps via Sushi X Swap, the Kashi lending platform, and the MISO launchpad were ambitious additions. However, Kashi was deprecated, and the platform's technical edge over basic AMMs is minimal. SushiSwap still runs a standard constant-product AMM without concentrated liquidity.
Tokenomics and Governance
SushiSwap has one advantage: SUSHI holders can stake for xSUSHI and receive a share of protocol fees. This gives the token real cash flow. The mechanism is straightforward and has worked since launch.
UNI holders have been waiting for fee sharing for years. Uniswap Labs has discussed activating the "fee switch" to direct protocol revenue to UNI holders, but governance proposals have stalled due to regulatory concerns. UNI is a governance token without direct revenue sharing as of early 2026.
For token investors, SUSHI offers yield. UNI offers governance over a much larger protocol. The market has overwhelmingly valued UNI higher despite no fee revenue, reflecting confidence in the underlying protocol's dominance.
Team and Stability
Uniswap Labs is well-funded, professionally managed, and has maintained consistent leadership. Hayden Adams has led the project since inception. The team continues to ship major upgrades on a regular cadence.
SushiSwap has had a rough ride. The anonymous founder Chef Nomi sold the treasury and then returned it. Leadership has changed multiple times. Budget constraints, internal disagreements, and community drama have plagued the project. The current team is smaller and less resourced than Uniswap Labs.
For a protocol handling user funds, team stability matters. SushiSwap's governance and team issues have directly impacted its ability to compete technically and retain users.
Multi-chain Strategy
Both protocols are deployed on many chains. Uniswap is on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, BSC, Avalanche, Celo, and others. SushiSwap is on even more chains (15+), having aggressively deployed early.
However, deployment is not the same as success. Uniswap has meaningful liquidity on every chain it is on. SushiSwap's multi-chain TVL is thinly spread. Being on 15 chains with shallow liquidity on each is less useful than being on 10 chains with deep liquidity.
Uniswap's brand recognition means liquidity providers follow it to new chains. SushiSwap often gets early liquidity from farm incentives that dry up when emissions decrease.
When to Use Each
Use Uniswap for almost everything. It has the best liquidity, the best execution, and the most advanced AMM technology on EVM chains. If you are swapping major tokens on Ethereum or any L2, Uniswap is the default choice.
Use SushiSwap when a DEX aggregator routes through it for a better price on a specific pair, or if you are interested in SUSHI staking yields. SushiSwap also has a community that supports it and specific token pairs where it may still have competitive liquidity.
For most DeFi users, the decision is made for them by aggregators. You do not choose a DEX manually for every swap. You use an aggregator like 1inch or Paraswap that routes to whichever DEX offers the best price, and Uniswap wins that routing competition most often.
The Verdict
Uniswap is the clear winner on liquidity, volume, technology, and team stability. SushiSwap has the edge on tokenomics with actual fee sharing for SUSHI holders. For swapping, use Uniswap or an aggregator. For LP provision, Uniswap's concentrated liquidity offers better capital efficiency. SushiSwap is a viable protocol with a loyal community, but it has lost the competitive battle against Uniswap on nearly every front.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is SushiSwap a copy of Uniswap?
SushiSwap was forked from Uniswap V2 code in August 2020. It started as a direct copy with added SUSHI token incentives. Since then, both projects have diverged significantly. Uniswap advanced with V3 and V4. SushiSwap added cross-chain features and other products.
Does Uniswap share revenue with UNI holders?
Not yet. The "fee switch" that would direct protocol revenue to UNI holders has been discussed but not activated. Regulatory concerns have stalled governance proposals. SUSHI holders, by contrast, do receive fee revenue through xSUSHI staking.
Should I provide liquidity on Uniswap or SushiSwap?
Uniswap has far more volume, which means more fee revenue for LPs. Uniswap V3 concentrated liquidity also allows better capital efficiency. Unless SushiSwap is running specific farming incentives for a pair you hold, Uniswap is the better choice for LP income.