Extended vs GMX Comparison
| 0% maker / 0.025% 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% maker / 0.025% taker | Fees | 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) |
Pros & Cons
- 0% maker fee, 0.025% taker
- Daily maker rebates based on maker share
- Very low network fees on Starknet
- Unified margin across several asset classes
- Self-custody
- Considerably smaller than the market leaders
- Around 50 trading pairs — a narrower list than competitors
- 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
- Fee-free on the maker side
- Team with Revolut roots
- Cross-asset collateral and unified margin
- Network costs in the cents range
- 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
Makers pay no trading fee, takers 0.025%. Depending on 30-day maker share, daily rebates of up to 2 basis points apply on top. Network fees on Starknet typically run to a few cents per transaction and barely register against the trading fee. 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 functional and aimed at users with futures experience. 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
Extended runs more than 50 perpetual pairs and adds spot and lending markets. Collateral can be deployed across asset classes and margin is unified at account level. Alongside standard order types there are TP/SL brackets that set target and stop together. 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
| Extended Finance | Company | GMX Protocol |
| Unknown (Decentralised team) | Headquarters | Decentralised, no registered office |
Verdict
In our overall rating Extended leads with 4.4 against 4.2 for GMX.
For most investors Extended is therefore the better choice.
Extended was built by a team with a Revolut background and runs on Starknet mainnet. The product promise goes beyond plain perpetuals: collateral can be used across asset classes, margin is unified, and spot and lending markets round out the offering.
On price Extended leads: makers pay nothing, takers 0.025%, with daily maker rebates depending on maker share. Network fees on Starknet run to a few cents per transaction, so total costs stay low even for frequent trading.
Scale needs stating plainly: measured by capital locked, Extended is far smaller than Hyperliquid or Lighter, and the market list covers roughly 50 pairs. 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.