Full disclosure in sentence one: Team Finance is a TrustSwap product, so we're a party to this comparison. We're publishing it anyway because both platforms' fees are public, both are audited, and the honest version of this page didn't exist. Check every number against the linked sources.
What's the short answer?
Team Finance wins on fee predictability and lock legibility; UNCX wins on pool coverage — it locks Aerodrome and Uniswap v4 pools that Team Finance doesn't support on Base. Both have operated since 2020, both publish audits, and both are legitimate choices — which is precisely why the decision comes down to two questions: what pool type you're locking, and what the fee model costs at your pool size.
How do the fees compare on Base?
Team Finance charges a flat $150 per lock with no percentage taken; UNCX charges a smaller flat component (0.1 ETH) plus a percentage of your position — and the percentage is what scales. The verified numbers (official docs, August 2026): UNCX's v2-pair lock costs 0.1 ETH + 1% of the locked LP tokens; its v3 position lock costs 0.1 ETH + (on the default option) 0.5% of the liquidity plus 2% of collected fees for the life of the lock; vesting costs 0.05 ETH + 0.1% of vested tokens. Team Finance: $150 for any lock (liquidity, team, or NFT), $100 for vesting, no percentage of anything (pricing table).
The arithmetic is the argument. On a $20,000 pool, UNCX's 1% is $200 plus the 0.1 ETH — comparable to $150 flat. On a $200,000 pool, the same 1% is $2,000 of your liquidity. On a v3 lock, the 2%-of-collected-fees component keeps charging as your position earns. Percentage fees aren't wrong — they're just a number you should compute for your pool before choosing, and one that flat pricing lets you skip.
Where does UNCX win?
UNCX locks pool types Team Finance can't touch on Base: Aerodrome LPs and Uniswap v4 positions. If your liquidity strategy is committed to Aerodrome's emissions ecosystem or to a v4 hook design, UNCX is the audited locker that covers you, and this page won't pretend otherwise — the trade-off analysis is in the Aerodrome answer. UNCX also lets lock ownership changes and relocks run free of the flat fee, which is a nice touch for active treasury management (relocks still pay the percentage on v2).
Where does Team Finance win?
Predictable cost at any size, the longest continuous lock-page legibility in the category, and a product suite around the lock. The flat fee means a $2M pool costs what a $20k pool costs. Lock pages, explorer labels, and screener recognition have compounded since 2020 across tens of thousands of projects — legibility is most of what a lock buys, and it's where incumbency genuinely matters. And the lock rarely travels alone: creation (free via MintPlus, with the lock fee waived for auto-locks), vesting at a flat $100, multisender, airdrops, and staking pools run in the same account on Base — one stack instead of a toolbox of vendors. (How locking works.)
What about audits and track record?
Both platforms are audited and both survived long enough for that to mean something — the differences are in the details. UNCX's Uniswap v3 locker was audited by OpenZeppelin (January 2024): 24 findings including one critical, with the critical and high-severity issues resolved in follow-up PRs and some medium/low findings acknowledged; contracts are public on GitHub. Team Finance's audits are published in its security handbook, with contracts non-custodial throughout and a track record securing billions in value since 2020 (as of August 2026). Neither platform has a catastrophic exploit on its record. Whichever you choose, verify the lock on BaseScan yourself — the whole point of this category is that you don't have to take either vendor's word.
FAQ
Which is cheaper on Base? For small pools they're comparable; the bigger the pool, the more the flat $150 wins. Compute UNCX's percentage at your pool size — the crossover is roughly where 1% of your LP exceeds ~$150 minus the 0.1 ETH difference.
Can I use both? Yes — nothing prevents locking different pools with different lockers, and projects with both Uniswap and Aerodrome liquidity sometimes do exactly that. Two lock pages is a small price for covering both pool types.
Who supports more chains? Both are heavily multichain; support varies by product. For Base specifically, both cover v2 and v3 locking and vesting; UNCX adds v4 and Aerodrome.
Is this page fair? It's as fair as we could make it while building one of the products: every fee figure links to the vendor's own documentation, UNCX's real advantages are stated plainly, and we'd rather you pick UNCX with open eyes than pick us with closed ones.
Next steps: all Base lockers compared · how to lock liquidity on Base · back to the Base hub
Base is developed by Coinbase. TrustSwap is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Coinbase, Inc. All product and company names are trademarks of their respective holders; their use here is for identification purposes only.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not financial advice. All competitor figures verified against official UNCX documentation as of August 2026 and linked above — fee models change; re-verify before locking.