Uniswap V2 and V3 experience the same kind of impermanent loss, but V3 turns the dial up. V2 spreads your liquidity across every possible price and follows the classic IL curve. V3 lets you pack liquidity into a narrow price range — which multiplies your fees and your impermanent loss by the same mechanism, and introduces a failure mode V2 doesn't have: going fully one-sided when price leaves your range. Here's the side-by-side.
A V2 pool holds both tokens across the entire price curve under the constant-product invariant x·y = k (Uniswap V2 whitepaper, 2020). Its impermanent loss has the familiar closed form:
IL = 2·√r / (1 + r) − 1
where r is the new price ratio over the deposit ratio (derivation: Auditless, 2020). It depends only on the size of the move:
| Price-ratio change | V2 impermanent loss |
|---|---|
| 1.25× | ~0.6% |
| 1.5× | ~2.0% |
| 2× | ~5.7% |
| 3× | ~13.4% |
| 5× | ~25.5% |
V3's innovation is concentrated liquidity: instead of covering all prices, you provide liquidity only within a chosen range [pa, pb] (Uniswap V3 whitepaper, 2021). Inside that range your capital behaves like a much larger V2 position — that's the capital-efficiency win, and it's exactly why the impermanent loss is larger too. The tighter the range, the higher the effective leverage, so a given price move costs more relative to the V2 figures above. Concentration doesn't create a new kind of loss; it scales up the same one in proportion to the fees it also scales up.
V3 also adds a failure mode V2 doesn't have: if price exits your range, the position becomes 100% the weaker token and stops earning fees entirely, until price re-enters or you reposition. A full-range V2 position can never fully "go one-sided" this way.
There is a closed-form expression for V3 IL relative to the range bounds, but it's involved and depends on where pa and pb sit around the current price — which is why simulating the specific range is more reliable than trusting a single number. (The calculator below runs that simulation.)
| Dimension | Uniswap V2 | Uniswap V3 |
|---|---|---|
| Liquidity range | All prices (0 → ∞) | A chosen band [pa, pb] |
| IL formula | 2·√r/(1+r) − 1 | Amplified by range tightness; range-dependent |
| IL for same move | Baseline | Higher (proportional to concentration) |
| Out of range | Never fully one-sided | Goes 100% one asset, earns no fees |
| Fees for same capital | Baseline | Higher while in range |
| Management | Passive | Active (rebalancing) |
The V2-vs-V3 split maps directly onto Solana's AMMs: Raydium offers both a V2-style constant-product pool and a V3-style concentrated pool, Orca Whirlpools are V3-style concentrated liquidity, and Meteora DLMM is concentrated via discrete bins. The same "concentration amplifies IL" logic applies to all of them.
The free TraderBear impermanent loss calculator runs a 5,000-path Monte-Carlo simulation so you can compare how a V2 full-range position and different V3 ranges would fare across many price paths — with net APR versus holding, not just a single IL number. Browser-only, no signup.
For the same price move, yes — concentration acts like leverage, amplifying both fees and IL. V2's full range follows the un-amplified curve.
2·√r/(1+r) − 1, where r is the new/old price ratio. 2× → ~5.7%, 3× → ~13.4%, 5× → ~25.5%. Direction-independent.
It converts fully into the token that fell and earns no fees until price re-enters the range or you reposition.
Relatively — less amplification and lower chance of going one-sided, at the cost of fewer fees. The widest range approximates a V2 position.
Simulate any pair across 5,000 price paths and see IL vs net APR for full-range and concentrated positions. Free, browser-only, no signup.
Open the IL calculator →