Compare concentrated and full-range liquidity at your trade size

Compare the actual output for your intended size, direction and fee treatment. Concentrated liquidity can provide more local depth per unit of capital, while its advantage depends on the price ranges the trade traverses.

A matched-size comparison

Imagine hypothetical Pool A uses concentrated ranges and Pool B provides full-range liquidity. At an input of 1,000, A quotes 998 output and B quotes 990. At 10,000 input, A quotes 9,700 and B quotes 9,800 because A's larger trade encounters much thinner ranges.

These illustrative quotes show why one size cannot establish a universal ranking. They do not represent live pools or a formula predicting all concentrated markets.

Equal capital does not imply equal distribution

The Uniswap v3 design allows liquidity to be placed in bounded price ranges. Comparing equal TVL isolates neither local active depth nor capacity beyond a range boundary.

Also match initial price and fees. A favorable starting price or lower fee can explain a better quote even when the underlying curve would not otherwise be deeper. Keep those effects visible rather than crediting everything to concentration.

Report a range of relevant sizes

Use a short quote ladder around the actual trade amount. For each row, record output, separate costs, route and ending-range information if available. If the selected route mixes pool types, do not label the whole result as though it came from one curve.

For a narrow market with most activity near a common price, concentration can be economically useful. For a trade that moves far outside the dense region, wider liquidity may matter more. The defensible result is a comparison at specified states and sizes. Avoid converting an architecture's theoretical capital-efficiency claim into a guaranteed net saving for every swap.