GMX vs MetaMask Comparison
| 0.04% maker / 0.06% taker (V2) | Fees | Depends on integrated perp provider (avg 0.02–0.06%) |
GMX
vs
MetaMaskWinner
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
- Perpetual trading without leaving the MetaMask wallet
- Execution through the Hyperliquid order book
- Fee openly disclosed, no hidden spread
- One-click funding from various EVM chains
- Self-custody, no KYC
Cons
- 0.1% builder fee on top of the executing order book's own fee
- Trading directly on Hyperliquid is noticeably cheaper
- No EU authorisation
- Blocked in several countries including the US and the UK
Score Comparison
4.3Usability4.4
4.0Features4.0
3.8Fees3.8
4.4Stability4.5
3.5Support3.6
Features
- Pool-based model instead of an order book
- No conventional slippage
- Leverage up to 100x
- Established protocol on Arbitrum
- Out of beta since April 2026
- One-click funding from any EVM chain
- Transparently disclosed additional fee
- Leverage up to 50x
Details
GMXMetaMask
| GMX Protocol | Company | Consensys + integrated partners |
| Decentralised, no registered office | Headquarters | United States |