GMX vs Hyperliquid Comparison
| 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) | Fees | 0.015% maker / 0.045% taker |
GMX
vs
HyperliquidWinner
Pros & Cons
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
Pros
- Order book held fully on-chain on a purpose-built layer 1
- CEX-level fees from 0.015% maker / 0.045% taker
- No network fees on trades
- 170+ perpetual markets with order types including TWAP
- Self-custody, no mandatory KYC
Cons
- No EU authorisation and no regulated counterparty
- Support runs through community channels only
- Leverage is capped tightly on smaller markets — headline figures apply to major markets only
- Tax reporting rests entirely with the user
Score Comparison
4.3Usability4.8
4.0Features4.8
3.8Fees4.7
4.4Stability4.6
3.5Support3.8
Features
- Pool-based model instead of an order book
- No conventional slippage
- Leverage up to 100x
- Established protocol on Arbitrum
- Largest perpetual DEX by trading volume
- Purpose-built layer 1 rather than a rollup dependency
- Fee discount through HYPE staking
- TWAP orders available to retail users
Details
GMXHyperliquid
| GMX Protocol | Company | Hyperliquid Labs |
| Decentralised, no registered office | Headquarters | United States |