Backpack vs GMX Comparison
| 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
Backpack
vs
GMXWinner
Pros & Cons
Pros
- 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
Cons
- 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
Pros
- 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
Cons
- 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
4.6Usability4.3
4.0Features4.0
4.2Fees3.8
4.2Stability4.4
4.0Support3.5
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
Details
BackpackGMX
| Backpack Exchange (Coral) | Company | GMX Protocol |
| United Arab Emirates | Headquarters | Decentralised, no registered office |