ApexLiquid vs Mass.money

Name: ApexLiquid vs Mass.money OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Mass.money leads on the only live benchmark. Mass.money wins on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard ($1,904.52 vs $186.2).

Read methodology Last measured Thu, 27 Aug 2026 03:12:05 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

ApexLiquid

ApexLiquid is a Telegram bot and smart wallet that auto copies on chain smart money traders on Hyperliquid in roughly one second, routing mirrored fills via a registered builder code.

Mass.money

Mobile first DeFi aggregator using account abstraction to unify spot, perps and tokenized stock trading across chains including Hyperliquid.

Side by side measurements

Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard

Trading

Provider	Builder fees collected	Volume routed	Users 24h	Effective fee bps	Time since last fill
ApexLiquid	$186.2	$391.5K	93	0.048%	5.7 min
Mass.money	$1,904.52	$3.44M	77	0.055%	18.2 min

Ranking is by raw builder fee revenue in USD, not by value for users. Bigger number means more fees collected via the on-chain builder code field. For the trader cost perspective, switch to the Effective fee bps companion tab. Native Hyperliquid UI orders carry no builder code and are excluded. Data from a local hl node tailing every fill on mainnet.

Frequently asked questions

ApexLiquid vs Mass.money: which one is better?

ApexLiquid and Mass.money are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Mass.money leads on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, ApexLiquid or Mass.money?

On the Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard benchmark, Mass.money leads at $1,904.52 versus ApexLiquid at $186.2. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the ApexLiquid vs Mass.money comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing — panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.