Impermanent Loss Calculator

Live 50/50 AMM stress test - ratio move presets, IL ladder, and a fees-versus-gap line so you can see whether LPing clears holding before you deposit.

Educational model for classic constant-product (x·y=k) 50/50 pools. Concentrated liquidity, custom weights, and live fee APR are out of scope — compare IL to fees you actually earn before you deposit.

By Ahmet C. Toplutaş·Site owner & editor · Blockchain & DeFi tools

Last updated May 21, 2026 · Reviewed May 21, 2026 · Planning estimates only - not tax, medical, or investment advice

The decision you are underwriting

Providing liquidity is not “holding two tokens in a wallet.” The AMM continuously rebalances you: as one asset rises versus the other, the pool sells the winner into the loser. Impermanent loss (IL) is the gap between that rebalanced LP bag and simply holding the same entry mix outside the pool, measured at a new price ratio.

It is called impermanent because if the ratio returns to your entry, that gap closes - until you withdraw at a different ratio and lock the difference in. This page answers one practical question: at the moves I should underwrite, do fees clear the HODL gap?

IL is an opportunity-cost lens, not a bank balance. Your LP can be up in USD and still trail HODL. The panel’s “Fees − IL gap” line makes that tradeoff explicit.

Read the ratio ladder first

Most LP write-ups show one IL number. Real pairs wander through a band of relative moves. The panel ladder maps your deposit across common multiples (1.1× through 4×) so you see how fast the gap grows - before you fall in love with an advertised fee APR.

~1.1–1.25× - mild drift; IL is usually small (well under 1% on a 50/50 pool)
2× / ½ - classic textbook case; IL ≈ 5.7% versus HODL
3× / ≈⅓ - IL ≈ 13.4%
4× / ¼ - IL ≈ 20% - fees have to work hard to justify this on a volatile pair

Tap a move preset (Flat, Mild, 2×, 4×) to set the stress ratio from your entry. For 50/50 pools the math is symmetric: a 2× move and a ½ move produce the same IL magnitude.

Fees must clear the gap

Trading fees (and any incentives you treat as cash) are the only reason most people LP. IL does not vanish because fee APR looks high on a dashboard - fees only matter if the dollars collected over your hold beat the HODL gap at exit.

Panel field: Fees earned while LPing (USD). Enter what you collected (or a sober estimate), not a headline APR. The “Fees − IL gap” line turns green when fees cover that stress scenario’s opportunity cost. Add gas separately - entry, rebalance, and exit all cost.

Quiet pools with thin volume often cannot clear even a 2× move. High-volume pairs can - until a violent ratio move arrives in a short window and fees have not had time to accrue.

Formula (50/50 constant product)

IL = 2√r / (1 + r) − 1r = final price ratio ÷ entry price ratio

Negative IL% means the LP position trails simply holding the entry mix at the exit prices. This is the closed-form result for an equal-weight x·y=k pool with no fees in the formula itself - fees are layered on afterward (as in the panel).

Concentrated liquidity (Uniswap v3-style ranges) has different payoff math inside and outside the range. Do not use this tool for active ranges.

Worked scenarios

A · ETH/USDC, $10k, 2× ETH. Entry ratio 1, final 2. IL ≈ 5.7% → about $570 versus HODL before fees. If you earned $800 in fees over that path, the panel’s net line is positive for this stress - still check gas and whether a 2× move is your planning case or a hope.

Use the 2× move preset with deposit 10000 and fees 800 to match scenario A.

B · Volatile/volatile, 4× relative move. Same $10k, r = 4. IL ≈ 20% → about $2,000 of opportunity cost. A farm advertising 40% APR does not automatically clear this if the move happens in three weeks and most of the APR never materializes as cash fees.

C · Stable/stable, mild drift. USDC/USDT style pairs usually sit near r ≈ 1. Mild preset (~1.25×) shows tiny IL. Here the risk is less “classic IL” and more depeg, inventory, and smart-contract assumptions - stress a depeg multiple deliberately if that is what you fear.

When not to LP (with this model)

You want directional exposure to one asset - the pool will sell winners into losers.
Fee volume on the pair is thin relative to the ladder gaps you care about (open the ladder; if 2× already needs more fees than the pool historically pays, walk away).
Your strategy is concentrated liquidity - wrong tool; the payoff shape is different.
You are comparing LP yield to a staking or single-asset hold without converting incentives and gas into the same units.

How to use this panel

Set entry price ratio (often 1 if you think in relative terms from deposit).
Tap a move preset or type a final ratio you are willing to underwrite - not the friendliest chart on social media.
Enter pool deposit so the dollar gap is readable.
Add fees earned (or expected) in USD. Read “Fees − IL gap” and skim the ladder for worse multiples.
Subtract gas for deposit and exit before you call the position a win.

FAQ

Is impermanent loss the same as losing money?

Not always. Your LP position can still be worth more in USD than you deposited if both tokens rise. IL only measures the gap versus having held those same two tokens outside the pool. You can be up in dollars and still have IL versus HODL.

Do trading fees cancel impermanent loss?

Fees reduce the net damage; they do not rewrite the IL formula. If fee income (plus incentives, minus gas) exceeds the opportunity cost at exit, LPing beat holding for that period. Use the fees field in the panel to see whether your assumed fees clear the gap.

Does this work for Uniswap v3 / concentrated liquidity?

No. Concentrated ranges amplify both fees and IL inside the range and behave differently when price leaves the range. This tool models classic 50/50 constant-product (x·y=k) pools - Uniswap v2-style and many forks.

Why is IL the same for a 2× and a 0.5× move?

For a 50/50 constant-product pool, IL depends on the relative price change r such that IL(r) = IL(1/r). Doubling one asset versus the other is the same magnitude move as halving it.

When should I skip LPing even if fees look high?

If typical ratio moves on the pair regularly produce IL larger than realistic fee income over your hold period, or if you need directional exposure to one asset only. High advertised APR on a quiet, volatile pool is a common trap - stress several ratios before you deposit.

What does the fee break-even line mean?

It subtracts the IL opportunity cost (LP vs HODL at your stress ratio) from the fees you enter. Positive means fees more than cover that scenario’s IL gap; negative means HODL still wins on that stress case even after fees. It ignores gas, incentives, and token emissions unless you fold them into the fees number yourself.

Sources

Loading…

EMBED

Embed this calculator

Paste the iframe on a blog or docs page. Embed URLs stay out of the sitemap so they do not compete with the full calculator page.

Preview

<iframe src="https://howtocalculate.app/embed/blockchain/impermanent-loss-calculator" title="Impermanent loss calculator" width="100%" height="680" loading="lazy" style="border:1px solid #d6d3d1;border-radius:6px;max-width:100%;" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe>

The decision you are underwriting

IL is an opportunity-cost lens, not a bank balance. Your LP can be up in USD and still trail HODL. The panel’s “Fees − IL gap” line makes that tradeoff explicit.

Read the ratio ladder first

~1.1–1.25× - mild drift; IL is usually small (well under 1% on a 50/50 pool)
2× / ½ - classic textbook case; IL ≈ 5.7% versus HODL
3× / ≈⅓ - IL ≈ 13.4%
4× / ¼ - IL ≈ 20% - fees have to work hard to justify this on a volatile pair

Tap a move preset (Flat, Mild, 2×, 4×) to set the stress ratio from your entry. For 50/50 pools the math is symmetric: a 2× move and a ½ move produce the same IL magnitude.

Fees must clear the gap

Quiet pools with thin volume often cannot clear even a 2× move. High-volume pairs can - until a violent ratio move arrives in a short window and fees have not had time to accrue.

Formula (50/50 constant product)

IL = 2√r / (1 + r) − 1r = final price ratio ÷ entry price ratio

Concentrated liquidity (Uniswap v3-style ranges) has different payoff math inside and outside the range. Do not use this tool for active ranges.

Worked scenarios

Use the 2× move preset with deposit 10000 and fees 800 to match scenario A.

When not to LP (with this model)

You want directional exposure to one asset - the pool will sell winners into losers.
Fee volume on the pair is thin relative to the ladder gaps you care about (open the ladder; if 2× already needs more fees than the pool historically pays, walk away).
Your strategy is concentrated liquidity - wrong tool; the payoff shape is different.
You are comparing LP yield to a staking or single-asset hold without converting incentives and gas into the same units.

How to use this panel

Set entry price ratio (often 1 if you think in relative terms from deposit).
Tap a move preset or type a final ratio you are willing to underwrite - not the friendliest chart on social media.
Enter pool deposit so the dollar gap is readable.
Add fees earned (or expected) in USD. Read “Fees − IL gap” and skim the ladder for worse multiples.
Subtract gas for deposit and exit before you call the position a win.

FAQ

Is impermanent loss the same as losing money?

Do trading fees cancel impermanent loss?

Does this work for Uniswap v3 / concentrated liquidity?

Why is IL the same for a 2× and a 0.5× move?

For a 50/50 constant-product pool, IL depends on the relative price change r such that IL(r) = IL(1/r). Doubling one asset versus the other is the same magnitude move as halving it.

When should I skip LPing even if fees look high?

What does the fee break-even line mean?

Move

IL vs HODL

Gap

1.1× / 0.91×

-0.11%

$511

1.25× / 0.8×

-0.62%

$1,312

1.5× / 0.67×

-2.02%

$2,702

2× / 0.5×

-5.72%

$5,572

3× / 0.33×

-13.40%

$11,340

4× / 0.25×

-20.00%

$17,000

Impermanent Loss Calculator

The decision you are underwriting

Read the ratio ladder first

Fees must clear the gap

Formula (50/50 constant product)

Worked scenarios

When not to LP (with this model)

How to use this panel

FAQ

Is impermanent loss the same as losing money?

Do trading fees cancel impermanent loss?

Does this work for Uniswap v3 / concentrated liquidity?

Why is IL the same for a 2× and a 0.5× move?

When should I skip LPing even if fees look high?

What does the fee break-even line mean?

Sources

Embed this calculator

The decision you are underwriting

Read the ratio ladder first

Fees must clear the gap

Formula (50/50 constant product)

Worked scenarios

When not to LP (with this model)

How to use this panel

FAQ

Is impermanent loss the same as losing money?

Do trading fees cancel impermanent loss?

Does this work for Uniswap v3 / concentrated liquidity?

Why is IL the same for a 2× and a 0.5× move?

When should I skip LPing even if fees look high?

What does the fee break-even line mean?

Sources

What this number means

Share your calculation