Momentum vs Sushiswap

Volume & Liquidity

On current activity, Sushiswap is materially larger. It posts $12.9M in 24h volume versus $1.5M for Momentum, indicating materially deeper and more consistent order flow across its markets. Higher aggregate volume typically translates into better execution for market orders and more reliable pricing for larger trades, especially during volatile periods.

Liquidity depth also favors Sushiswap: $61.2M TVL versus $9.2M on Momentum. While Momentum’s TVL is meaningful for the Sui ecosystem, Sushiswap’s broader liquidity base generally supports tighter effective spreads and higher capacity for size before incurring slippage.

Momentum’s market breadth is respectable on a single chain (45 pairs / 33 coins), but Sushiswap still leads on raw breadth (68 pairs / 42 coins) alongside its higher TVL—an important combination for institutional routing and more complex portfolio rebalancing.

Fee Structure & Costs

Using the provided 24h metrics, Sushiswap collects $6K fees on $12.9M volume, while Momentum collects $2K fees on $1.5M volume. This implies an approximate fee burden of ~0.046% for Sushiswap versus ~0.133% for Momentum (fees divided by volume), suggesting Sushiswap is currently offering a lower all-in fee take on traded notional.

From a trader perspective, that lower implied fee load is typically the dominant driver of cost—especially for high-frequency or large-notional strategies. Gas costs are chain-dependent: Sushiswap spans everything from Ethereum mainnet to multiple L2s and alt-L1s (where execution costs can be competitive), while Momentum’s Sui deployment generally benefits from low base transaction costs.

From a protocol value-capture angle, Momentum shows $327 in 24h revenue versus $0 for Sushiswap in these notes, indicating Momentum is currently accruing measurable protocol revenue. However, judged on user-facing fee value using the provided fee/volume figures, Sushiswap is more cost-efficient on traded notional.

Multi-chain & Ecosystem

Sushiswap’s distribution is meaningfully broader, spanning Ethereum plus a long tail of L2s and L1s (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, Avalanche, BNB Chain, Linea, Scroll, Blast, and others). This footprint increases addressable user base, supports cross-ecosystem liquidity, and improves integration optionality with aggregators, wallets, and yield venues across networks.

Momentum is Sui-only in the provided data. That focus can be an advantage for ecosystem-native users—tighter alignment with Sui’s liquidity venues and potentially faster iteration—but it necessarily limits addressable liquidity and the breadth of integrations compared with a multi-chain DEX.

For institutional workflows, multi-chain presence tends to matter: it enables network-specific execution (choosing the best venue/chain for a given asset), reduces concentration risk, and supports broader collateral and hedging options. On this dimension, the gap is structural and large.

User Recommendations

Choose Momentum if you are Sui-native and want exposure to ve(3,3)-style incentives—particularly if you are an active liquidity provider or voter who wants to participate in emissions governance and optimize yield through gauge-style allocation dynamics. Momentum is also a fit for users prioritizing Sui’s low-friction transaction experience and who are comfortable with more “DeFi-native” mechanics.

Choose Sushiswap if you want a familiar Uniswap V3-style concentrated liquidity experience, broad asset availability across chains, and easier access via common wallets and aggregators. It is generally the more straightforward venue for most traders: deeper liquidity on aggregate, more routing options, and less need to understand protocol-specific tokenomics to get competitive execution.

For teams operating across multiple networks (treasury ops, market makers, multi-chain token projects), Sushiswap’s footprint reduces operational overhead: one DEX brand and interface pattern across many chains, rather than chain-specific venues and fragmented liquidity.

Trends & Innovation

Momentum’s positioning as a ve(3,3) DEX is fundamentally more differentiated: it attempts to align traders, LPs, and token holders via vote-escrow and emissions direction, which can create durable liquidity moats when executed well. This design can be especially powerful in emerging ecosystems like Sui, where liquidity coordination and incentives meaningfully shape market structure.

Near-term momentum is negative in the provided trend data: TVL latest $9.0M with -12.0% trend vs 7d average, volume latest $937K with -38.6% trend, and fees latest $1K with -36.1% trend. That suggests a current drawdown in activity that needs to stabilize for the model to compound.

Sushiswap V3, as noted, is a Uniswap V3 fork. While it is battle-tested in terms of the core AMM design, its innovation profile is less about novel mechanism design and more about distribution, partnerships, and deployment breadth. On pure mechanism-driven trajectory, Momentum has the more innovative path even if near-term metrics are softer.