dYdX vs GMX Comparison
| 0.05% taker / 0.01% maker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
Cost comparison
The basis is a Bitcoin purchase worth €1,000, including all fees and spreads.
| 0.05% taker / 0.01% maker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
Pros & Cons
- 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
- 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
- Decentralised matching at validator level
- Purpose-built Cosmos chain
- Established name in derivatives
- 200+ perpetual markets
- 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
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.
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 aimed squarely at professional users and assumes experience with margin and funding. Access runs through a wallet connection. 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
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.
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
| dYdX Trading Inc. | Company | GMX Protocol |
| United States | Headquarters | Decentralised, no registered office |
Verdict
Both providers are practically level in our overall rating (4.3 to 4.2).
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.
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.