Backpack vs Jupiter Comparison

Backpack
Backpack
2.9of 5
Go to Backpack
vs
Jupiter
Jupiter
Winner
4.0of 5
Go to Jupiter
0.02% maker / 0.05% takerFees4-7 bps position open/close

Cost comparison

The basis is a Bitcoin purchase worth €1,000, including all fees and spreads.

BackpackJupiter
0.02% maker / 0.05% takerFees4-7 bps position open/close

Pros & Cons

Backpack
Backpack
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
Backpack Reviews
Jupiter
Jupiter
Pros
  • Near-zero network fees on Solana
  • Very fast execution
  • Embedded in Solana's largest trading ecosystem
  • Pool model without order-book slippage
  • Liquidity provision through JLP with a share of fees
Cons
  • Narrow market list — essentially the major pairs
  • Funding costs on open positions
  • Very high leverage tiers on individual pairs raise liquidation risk
  • No EU authorisation
Jupiter Reviews

Score Comparison

4.6Usability4.6
4.0Features3.9
4.2Fees4.0
4.2Stability4.3
4.0Support3.5

Features

Backpack
BackpackHighlights
  • One of the few perpetual venues with EU authorisation
  • MiCA CASP since May 2026
  • Perpetuals for EU clients since September 2025
  • Solana-native infrastructure
Jupiter
JupiterHighlights
  • Network fees at a fraction of a cent
  • JLP pool at billion-dollar scale
  • Part of the Solana trading ecosystem
  • Fee share for liquidity providers

The five areas head to head

AI Analysis

Fees & Costs

Backpack
Backpack

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.

Jupiter
Jupiter

Opening and closing a position each cost around 0.06%, with ongoing funding costs on top. Network fees on Solana sit well below a cent per transaction and are effectively negligible. A large share of fees flows to providers of pool liquidity. As of August 2026.

Usability & User Experience

Backpack
Backpack

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.

Jupiter
Jupiter

The interface is among the most approachable in this comparison and navigable for newcomers. A Solana wallet is required; there is no registration step. As of August 2026.

Features & Offering

Backpack
Backpack

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.

Jupiter
Jupiter

Perpetual trading runs against the JLP pool, which bundles several underlying assets and stablecoins. The offering concentrates on the major pairs; very high leverage tiers arrived on selected pairs in 2026. The aggregator additionally opens up spot trading across Solana. As of August 2026.

Details

BackpackJupiter
Backpack Exchange (Coral)CompanyJupiter Exchange
United Arab EmiratesHeadquartersSingapore

Verdict

In our overall rating Jupiter leads with 4.0 against 2.9 for Backpack.

For most investors Jupiter is therefore the better choice.

BackpackOur Opinion

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.

JupiterOur Opinion

Jupiter is the central trading venue on Solana and built its perpetuals as part of a wider ecosystem. As with GMX, trades run against a liquidity pool — here the JLP pool, which bundles Solana, Ethereum, Bitcoin and stablecoins and recently stood at around 1.4 billion US dollars.

In practice Solana plays to its strengths: network fees sit at a fraction of a cent and execution is fast. Trading fees run around 0.06% on open and close, plus funding costs on open positions. Very high leverage tiers arrived on selected pairs in 2026.

The constraint is breadth: perpetual trading concentrates on the major pairs around SOL, ETH and BTC, so anyone looking for a wide altcoin perpetual list is in the wrong place. For users already active on Solana, Jupiter is the obvious route. The platform holds no EU authorisation; perpetuals sit outside MiCA in any case, and tax reporting rests entirely with the user.