Daily active wallets per trading terminal: Fomo vs Axiom vs pump.fun vs GMGN
Distinct wallets that traded through each terminal in one complete day, counted per chain rather than pooled, with swaps per wallet and volume per wallet beside the count.
TL;DR. As of , Fomo leads active wallets 24h at 86.2K (24h) across 8 ranked terminals. Source: OpenChainBench, https://openchainbench.com/benchmarks/trading-platform-wallets.
Read this carefully
Distinct wallets per chain for one complete UTC day, from the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. A wallet that used two terminals is counted in each, so the columns are not mutually exclusive, and bots, MEV searchers and multi-wallet traders are all included. A wallet is not a person. Counts are per chain and never summed across chains: the source's own cross-chain deduplication runs about 0.6 of the per-chain sum, so adding the tabs would overstate every terminal.
Active wallet count says more about how many people use a terminal than transaction count does, because one bot can produce thousands of transactions and one wallet. This page counts the distinct wallets that traded through each terminal on the latest complete day, for each chain separately, and puts two ratios next to the count: swaps per wallet, and volume per wallet. The three together separate a terminal with many light users from one with few heavy ones. Fomo leads on wallet count while Terminal leads on both ratios, which is the same business run at two different intensities.
Methodology
The harness reads one day per terminal per chain from the tehcscreener /bots/{bot} endpoint and publishes the distinct wallet count as terminal_wallets, with terminal_trades_per_wallet and terminal_volume_per_wallet_usd derived from the same day's transactions and volume. Every figure is one chain's, on the day the source names as its latest. This bench measured nothing but Solana until 2026-10-07, through fee-wallet attribution over Dune, and three of its nine rows were structurally blank as a result. pump.fun and BasedBot had no fee wallet to attribute from, so they read unresponsive. Fomo sponsors the gas on the trades it routes, so the trader ids on its transactions were its own routing accounts and a count off them was orders of magnitude too low. None of those three limitations exist in a source that counts wallets directly rather than inferring them from who paid a fee, so all three now carry a real figure, and the comparison is no longer Solana-only.
Results: 8 terminals ranked by Active wallets 24h (24h)
| № | Terminals | Value | Swaps per wallet | Volume per wallet | Success |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fomo | 86.2K | 13 | $1,196.51 | 100.00% |
| 2 | Axiom | 70.2K | 29 | $1,872.71 | 100.00% |
| 3 | pump.fun | 51.6K | 19 | $701.26 | 100.00% |
| 4 | GMGN | 16.9K | 22 | $1,474.32 | 100.00% |
| 5 | Terminal | 8,324 | 34 | $2,506.8 | 100.00% |
| 6 | Trojan | 3,920 | 15 | $854.54 | 100.00% |
| 7 | Photon | 1,025 | 18 | $1,283.58 | 100.00% |
| 8 | Maestro | 925 | 9 | $720.31 | 100.00% |
Frequently asked
What does active wallet count measure?
The number of distinct addresses that executed at least one swap through the terminal on the day, on the chain the tab names. It is a proxy for daily active users, with two caveats that cut in opposite directions: one person can control many wallets, and bots count as wallets.
How is this different from swap transaction count (bench 207)?
Bench 207 counts every individual swap. This one counts distinct addresses. A bot placing 500 swaps contributes 500 there and 1 here, so the ratio between the two is a measure of trading frequency and bot intensity. That ratio is the Swaps per wallet column, so you do not have to open both pages to see it.
Why are the counts not added across chains?
Because a wallet trading on two chains is one wallet, not two. The source publishes a cross-chain deduplicated count where it can, and measured on Fomo it is about 0.6 of the sum of the per-chain counts. Since that deduplicated figure exists for only 2 of the 9 terminals, this page reads each chain on its own rather than mixing a deduplicated column with a summed one.
Why did pump.fun, BasedBot and Fomo used to be blank here?
Because the old source inferred wallets from who paid a terminal's fee wallet. pump.fun and BasedBot had no fee wallet to attribute from, and Fomo sponsors the gas on the trades it routes, so the addresses on its transactions were its own routing accounts rather than its users. The current source counts wallets directly, so none of those three limitations apply and all three carry a figure.
Can a terminal read unresponsive here while ranking on another bench?
Yes, and BasedBot does. It routes real volume on Robinhood Chain and almost none on Solana, so it ranks on one tab and reads unresponsive on the other. A terminal with no activity on the day is never given its last live day instead.
Source code github.com/ChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/dev/harnesses/terminal-activity