Backpack vs dYdX Comparison
| 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker | Fees | 0.05% taker / 0.01% maker |
Cost comparison
The basis is a Bitcoin purchase worth €1,000, including all fees and spreads.
| 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker | Fees | 0.05% taker / 0.01% maker |
Pros & Cons
- MiCA authorisation for the European entity, passported across the EU
- Perpetuals for EU clients through an entity under MiFID II supervision
- A named European supervisory counterparty
- Clean, approachable interface
- 200+ markets in the global offering
- EU clients limited to roughly 40 pairs and 10x leverage
- Fees above the fee-free competitors
- Not a pure DEX — execution runs on operator-run order-book infrastructure
- Account with identity verification required
- Fully decentralised order book — matching runs through validators
- Purpose-built Cosmos chain rather than a rollup dependency
- Long operating history and mature market structure
- 200+ markets
- Low network fees
- Market share has fallen sharply as liquidity moved to newer venues
- Thinner books and higher slippage in secondary markets
- No EU authorisation
- Support runs through community channels
Score Comparison
Features
- One of the few perpetual venues with EU authorisation
- MiCA CASP since May 2026
- Perpetuals for EU clients since September 2025
- Solana-native infrastructure
- Decentralised matching at validator level
- Purpose-built Cosmos chain
- Established name in derivatives
- 200+ perpetual markets
The five areas head to head
AI AnalysisFees & Costs
Standard fees are 0.02% for makers and 0.05% for takers, roughly the market average. At high volume, taker fees can be reduced further through limit orders. Against the fee-free competitors in this segment that is the more expensive route — set against a regulated framework. As of August 2026.
Fees run around 0.01% for makers and 0.05% for takers, tiered by trading volume, plus very low network fees on the native Cosmos chain. Against the fee-free newcomers in the segment that is no longer competitive; against centralised exchanges it remains inexpensive. As of August 2026.
Usability & User Experience
The interface is among the most approachable in the segment and navigable even without long futures experience. Unlike the pure on-chain competitors, an account with identity verification is required. As of August 2026.
The interface is aimed squarely at professional users and assumes experience with margin and funding. Access runs through a wallet connection. As of August 2026.
Features & Offering
Globally the offering spans more than 200 markets at up to 50x leverage. EU clients operate under a separate, tighter frame: roughly 40 perpetual pairs and up to 10x leverage, offered through a European entity under MiFID II supervision. Reduce-only orders are available alongside standard order types. As of August 2026.
More than 200 perpetual markets run on a purpose-built Cosmos chain. The architectural distinction is that the order book is not operated centrally but by the network's validators. Market and limit orders are joined by stop-loss, stop-limit and take-profit. As of August 2026.
Details
| Backpack Exchange (Coral) | Company | dYdX Trading Inc. |
| United Arab Emirates | Headquarters | United States |
Verdict
In our overall rating dYdX leads with 4.3 against 2.9 for Backpack.
For most investors dYdX is therefore the better choice.
Backpack sits apart in this comparison because the question is not whether you accept a regulatory gap. Its European entity obtained a MiCA CASP licence and a payment institution licence from the Latvian central bank in May 2026, both passported across the EU and EEA. Perpetuals themselves fall outside MiCA — a separate European entity under MiFID II supervision covers them.
The price of that protection is a much tighter frame: EU clients trade roughly 40 pairs at up to 10x leverage, against up to 50x globally. Fees of 0.02% maker and 0.05% taker sit around the market average and above the fee-free competitors.
For EU-based traders this is a different proposition from the rest of the field: less leverage, fewer markets, higher fees — but a regulated framework and a named supervisory counterparty. For anyone unwilling to trade perpetuals entirely outside European supervision, it is one of the few available routes.
dYdX set the standard in decentralised derivatives for years and made the most consistent architectural move in the sector with version 4: away from Ethereum, onto a purpose-built Cosmos chain where validators run the order book themselves. Matching, not just settlement, is decentralised — something most competitors still do not offer.
Market position has shifted drastically. From clear leadership in 2023, dYdX has fallen to a low single-digit share of perpetual volume while Hyperliquid and newer order-book DEXs absorbed the liquidity. For traders that mainly means thinner books in secondary markets and more noticeable slippage than at the volume leaders.
Technically the platform remains solid and fees of around 0.01% maker and 0.05% taker are reasonable. Traders who weight decentralisation highly find the most consistent implementation here; those chasing tight spreads are better served elsewhere. The platform holds no EU authorisation; perpetuals sit outside MiCA in any case, and tax reporting rests entirely with the user.