Backpack vs GMX Comparison
| 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
Cost comparison
The basis is a Bitcoin purchase worth €1,000, including all fees and spreads.
| 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
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
- Trading against a liquidity pool — no order-book slippage
- Oracle-based pricing
- 100+ perpetual contracts at up to 100x leverage
- Live on several chains, centred on Arbitrum
- Long operating history in DeFi
- More expensive than fee-free order-book competitors
- Ongoing funding costs weigh on longer holding periods
- Dependence on oracle pricing as a structural risk factor
- No EU authorisation
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
- Pool-based model instead of an order book
- No conventional slippage
- Leverage up to 100x
- Established protocol on Arbitrum
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.
In version 2, trading fees run around 0.04% for makers and 0.06% for takers. Ongoing funding costs apply to open positions, plus swap fees when collateral is exchanged. Network fees on Arbitrum sit in the range of a few cents. Anyone holding positions for days should price in funding costs above all. 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 deliberately simple and one of the more approachable entries in the segment — position size, leverage and collateral are set in a few steps. Anyone unfamiliar with the pool model should read up on funding costs and oracle pricing first. 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 100 perpetual contracts trade against a liquidity pool, with WETH, USDC or GMX serving as collateral. Pricing comes from oracle feeds rather than an order book. Beyond trading, users can supply liquidity; the protocol's fees flow predominantly to those providers. As of August 2026.
Details
| Backpack Exchange (Coral) | Company | GMX Protocol |
| United Arab Emirates | Headquarters | Decentralised, no registered office |
Verdict
In our overall rating GMX leads with 4.2 against 2.9 for Backpack.
For most investors GMX 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.
GMX takes a different route from order-book DEXs: trades run against a liquidity pool and prices come from oracle feeds. That has a practical benefit — even larger positions execute without the slippage a thin order book would produce. The counterweight is that liquidity providers carry the risk and are compensated through fees.
In version 2, trading fees run around 0.04% for makers and 0.06% for takers, plus ongoing funding costs on open positions. That makes GMX more expensive than the fee-free order-book competitors, particularly for positions held over longer periods.
The centre of gravity remains Arbitrum, with the protocol also live on Avalanche and further chains. More than 100 perpetual contracts trade at up to 100x leverage. GMX suits traders building larger positions who want to avoid order-book slippage and who price in funding costs. The platform holds no EU authorisation; perpetuals sit outside MiCA in any case, and tax reporting rests entirely with the user.