GMX vs Jupiter Comparison
| 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) | Fees | 4-7 bps position open/close |
Cost comparison
The basis is a Bitcoin purchase worth €1,000, including all fees and spreads.
| 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) | Fees | 4-7 bps position open/close |
Pros & Cons
- 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
- 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
- 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
Score Comparison
Features
- Pool-based model instead of an order book
- No conventional slippage
- Leverage up to 100x
- Established protocol on Arbitrum
- 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 AnalysisFees & Costs
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
| GMX Protocol | Company | Jupiter Exchange |
| Decentralised, no registered office | Headquarters | Singapore |
Verdict
In our overall rating GMX leads with 4.2 against 4.0 for Jupiter.
For most investors GMX is therefore the better choice.
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.
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.