Maple Finance vs Centrifuge: RWA Protocol Comparison 2026
Maple Finance and Centrifuge both bring real-world credit to DeFi but through fundamentally different mechanisms. Maple facilitates direct institutional lending, while Centrifuge enables tokenization of real-world assets for DeFi financing. This comparison examines their distinct approaches, risk profiles, and use cases.
Business Model Comparison
Maple Finance operates as an institutional lending marketplace. Pool delegates underwrite crypto-native borrowers (trading firms, market makers), and DeFi users provide capital for these loans. It's essentially a curated credit market for crypto institutions. Centrifuge operates as asset tokenization infrastructure. Real-world asset originators (invoice factoring companies, real estate lenders, etc.) tokenize their assets on Centrifuge, which can then be used as collateral in DeFi protocols like MakerDAO and Aave.Target Markets
Maple Market
- Borrowers: Crypto market makers, trading firms, yield funds
- Lenders: DeFi users seeking institutional credit exposure
- Geography: Global, crypto-native focus
- Asset Types: Uncollateralized corporate credit
Centrifuge Market
- Originators: Invoice factoring, real estate, trade finance, consumer credit
- Lenders: DeFi protocols (MakerDAO, Aave) and direct investors
- Geography: Global, real-economy focus
- Asset Types: Tokenized receivables, mortgages, invoices
Yield and Return Profiles
Maple Yields
- Range: 8-15% APY historically
- Source: Interest from institutional borrowers
- Risk: Concentrated in crypto-native counterparties
- Current: 8-12% typical post-2022
Centrifuge Yields
- Range: 6-12% APY depending on pool
- Source: Interest from real-world asset financing
- Risk: Diverse real-economy exposures
- Current: 8-10% typical for major pools
Risk Architecture
Maple Risk Structure
Maple pools are underwritten by pool delegates who stake capital as first-loss. Each pool represents concentrated exposure to the delegate's borrower selection. The 2022 defaults demonstrated concentrated pool risk when major borrowers failed simultaneously.
Risk Factors:- Delegate underwriting quality
- Concentrated borrower exposure
- Crypto market correlation
- Short-duration, rolling risk
Centrifuge Risk Structure
Centrifuge pools represent diverse real-world asset classes. Each pool has an originator who manages the underlying assets. The protocol enables junior/senior tranche structures for risk layering. Integration with MakerDAO provides additional protocol-level risk assessment.
Risk Factors:- Originator quality and operations
- Underlying asset performance
- Real-world collection risk
- Longer duration exposure
DeFi Integration
Maple DeFi Presence
- Primarily standalone lending pools
- Limited composability with other DeFi
- Pool tokens have restricted utility
- Institutional focus over DeFi-native
Centrifuge DeFi Integration
- MakerDAO: Centrifuge assets as DAI collateral ($200M+ deployed)
- Aave: Integration for RWA lending
- BlockTower: Major institutional pools
- Deep DeFi composability through tokenization standard
Centrifuge clearly wins on DeFi integration, serving as critical RWA infrastructure for major protocols.
Protocol Maturity and Track Record
Maple History
- Launched 2021 with rapid growth
- Significant defaults in 2022 (Orthogonal, Alameda-adjacent)
- Reformed underwriting post-crisis
- Rebuilding with more conservative approach
Centrifuge History
- Launched earlier (2017 as company, protocol evolved)
- Pioneered RWA tokenization standard
- MakerDAO partnership since 2021
- More stable performance through 2022
Tokenomics
Maple Token (MPL)
- Governance and pool staking
- ~10M supply
- Used for protocol backstop
Centrifuge Token (CFG)
- Governance and network fees
- Used for on-chain asset origination
- Polkadot parachain security
Liquidity Considerations
Maple Liquidity
- Pool-specific redemption windows
- 30-90 day typical lock-ups
- Limited secondary market
Centrifuge Liquidity
- Varies by pool and tranche
- Senior tranches typically more liquid
- Secondary markets developing
- DeFi integration provides some exit options
Regulatory Approach
Both protocols navigate complex regulatory environments:
Maple: Works within existing securities frameworks where applicable, focuses on institutional participants, implements KYC requirements. Centrifuge: Partners with regulated originators, structured to comply with securities laws, works with traditional finance institutions.Use Case Alignment
Choose Maple When:
- You want crypto-institutional credit exposure
- You prefer shorter duration loans
- You're comfortable with concentrated pool risk
- You want yields tied to crypto market activity
Choose Centrifuge When:
- You want real-economy asset exposure
- You prefer diversified asset classes
- You value DeFi protocol integration
- You want yields uncorrelated with crypto markets
Conclusion
Maple Finance serves as a crypto-native institutional lending marketplace. Best suited for investors seeking exposure to crypto trading firms and market makers with short-duration credit. Centrifuge serves as RWA infrastructure enabling diverse real-world assets to access DeFi liquidity. Best suited for investors seeking real-economy exposure and DeFi composability.For pure RWA exposure uncorrelated with crypto markets, Centrifuge offers more diversification. For crypto-institutional yields, Maple provides more direct access.
Track your RWA positions across both protocols with Fensory.