Axiom vs BasedBot

Split decision: Axiom leads on Trading terminal leaderboard ($70.96M vs $2.85M) and Trading app daily volume ($70.96M vs $2.85M); BasedBot leads on Trading terminal fill quality 2026 (356 bps vs 396 bps) and Trading terminal execution quality 2026 (296 bps vs 306 bps). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h8 shared benchmarks, 4 measured on both sides
Axiom logo
Axiom

Axiom is a Solana-native trading terminal expanding to Hyperliquid perps with a registered builder code, focused on advanced order types and pro-trader UX.

BasedBot logo
BasedBot

BasedBot is a trading bot whose flow is almost entirely on Robinhood Chain, with routing on BNB Chain, Base, Ethereum, Arc, HyperEVM and Avalanche and very little on Solana. Not to be confused with Based App, the Hyperliquid frontend tracked separately.

Side by side measurements

Trading terminal leaderboard: what GMGN, Axiom, Fomo and Terminal route and what they charge

Trading

Headline: All chains

ProviderDaily volumeVolume 7dVolume 30dFee revenueFee revenue 7dFee revenue 30dTake rateTake rate 7dTake rate 30d
Axiom$70.96M$548.15M$3.08B$613.8K$4.80M$26.83M0.90%0.90%0.92%
BasedBot$2.85M$23.42M$230.81M$12.8K$102.6K$1.02M0.45%0.44%0.44%
View
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Volume routed through each terminal's own interface, not volume on the tokens it trades: a swap on a pump.fun token executed through Axiom counts for Axiom here and for pump.fun on bench 200. From the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. Fee revenue is what the source reports as fees, which is more than the terminal's own commission; bench 203 explains what that is and is not.

Last complete UTC day · Daily volumeRaw JSON

Memecoin terminal take rates: what Terminal, Trojan, GMGN and pump.fun keep

Trading

Headline: All chains

Axiom

Trails

0.90 %

p99
0.90%
rank
#3
samples
613,772

BasedBot

No data in window

Observed take rate
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

One complete UTC day's fee revenue divided by that day's routed volume, from the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. What the terminal kept, a lower bound on what it charges: waivers and rebates pull it down. A cell reading zero is withheld rather than ranked whenever that platform charges on another chain, because this page cannot tell a waived fee from an unmeasured one. Not the all-in cost of a swap, which also includes slippage; benches 268 and 279 measure that.

Last complete UTC day · Observed take rateRaw JSON

Average swap size per trading terminal: who carries the biggest tickets

Trading

Headline: All chains

Axiom

Leads

$49.43

p99
$49.43
rank
#5
samples
1,435,437

BasedBot

No data in window

Per chain

ChainAxiomBasedBot
BNB Chain$130.49$108.80
Robinhood Chain$90.54$133.51
Arc$62.76$116.26
Avg swap size
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Average swap size is one complete UTC day's routed volume divided by that day's swap count, on the chain the tab names or across all of them. From the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. Both figures include bot and MEV activity. A mean, not a median, so a handful of large tickets moves it and this is not the typical trade. Larger is not better in any product sense; it describes who the terminal serves.

Last complete UTC day · Avg swap sizeRaw JSON

Daily swap transactions per trading terminal: Axiom vs Fomo vs pump.fun vs GMGN

Trading

Headline: All chains

Axiom

Leads

1.44M

p99
1.44M
rank
#1
samples
70,955,500

BasedBot

No data in window

Per chain

ChainAxiomBasedBot
BNB Chain12.1K5,101
Robinhood Chain14.5K13.7K
Arc210180
Swap transactions 24h
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Transaction counts for one complete UTC day, on the chain the tab names or summed across all of them, from the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. Counts transactions, not wallets: bench 232 counts the distinct wallets behind them, and the ratio between the two pages is a measure of automation. Bots, MEV searchers and multi-wallet traders are all included.

Last complete UTC day · Swap transactions 24hRaw JSON

Daily active wallets per trading terminal: Fomo vs Axiom vs pump.fun vs GMGN

Trading

Headline: Solana only

Axiom

Leads

48.2K

p99
48.2K
rank
#3
samples
1,435,437

BasedBot

No data in window

Per chain

ChainAxiomBasedBot
BNB Chain911892
Robinhood Chain1,3702,341
Arc3392
Active wallets 24h
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

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.

Last complete UTC day · Active wallets 24hRaw JSON

Trading app daily volume: GMGN, Axiom, Fomo, Terminal, Photon, Trojan by UTC day

Trading

Headline: All chains

ProviderDaily volumeVolume 7dVolume 30dShareShare 7dShare 30dChains reachedDays of history
Axiom$70.96M$548.15M$3.08B34.5%34.7%29.6%4647
BasedBot$2.85M$23.42M$230.81M1.39%1.48%2.22%7282
View
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Routed volume for one complete UTC day, from the public tehcscreener API, which is Allium-backed. Six apps left this cohort on 2026-10-07 because the source does not cover them: BonkBot, Banana Gun, Bloom, Sol Trading Bot, PepeBoost and o1.exchange. An app that cannot be measured is removed rather than published as zero.

Last complete UTC day · Daily volumeRaw JSON

Trading terminal fill quality 2026: what a swap costs on Axiom, GMGN, FOMO, Photon, Trojan, measured on-chain

Trading

Headline: All chains

ProviderCost per swapTerminal feeNetworkPoolFailed swaps
Axiom396 bps96.0 bps14.9 bps141 bps4.24%
BasedBotprovisional356 bps59.9 bps1.80 bps149 bps2.51%
View
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Random sample (150 a day per row, Solana and EVM alike) of the swaps each terminal routed, every attempt counted for the fail rate. Reference = the pool's state before the swap (its reserves, or the previous trade within 60 s); swaps without one keep their split, no loss figure. Published from 50 priced swaps pooled over the product's chains at 25 or more (a single-chain product from 25), ranked from 100; the median's 95 % interval is in the JSON. Compare medians, not single swaps.

Trading terminal execution quality 2026: what a swap costs once the app's own fee is removed

Trading

Headline: All chains

ProviderExecution lossCost per swap, all inApp feeNetworkPool
Axiom306 bps395 bps96.0 bps14.9 bps141 bps
BasedBotprovisional296 bps346 bps59.9 bps1.80 bps149 bps
View
Axiomn/aBasedBotn/a

Same sample, window and reference as bench 268; read that page for how a swap is priced. Here each swap's loss has the terminal's fee subtracted before the median is taken. Subtracting the two published medians gives a different number wherever an app's fee varies across its own swaps, which is why this is measured, not derived. A swap reads negative when a fee was rebated or the reference drifted the user's way; those stay in. Compare medians with their intervals, never single swaps.

Frequently asked questions

Axiom vs BasedBot: which one is better?

Axiom and BasedBot are compared on 8 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Axiom leads on Trading terminal leaderboard. BasedBot leads on Trading terminal fill quality 2026. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which has the higher daily volume, Axiom or BasedBot?

On the Trading terminal leaderboard benchmark, Axiom leads at $70.96M versus BasedBot at $2.85M. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

Which is cheaper, Axiom or BasedBot?

On the Trading terminal fill quality 2026 benchmark, BasedBot leads at 356 bps (provisional) versus Axiom at 396 bps. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Axiom vs BasedBot 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.

Related comparisons

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.

Live data refreshes via ISR within 60 seconds of a new run. Sources are the same Prometheus queries surfaced on the parent benchmark pages.