Axiom vs GMGN

Axiom leads on 5 of 8 shared benchmarks, GMGN on 3. Axiom wins on Trading terminal leaderboard ($50.53M vs $22.28M), Memecoin trading fees (0.88% vs 1.04%), Daily swap transactions per trading terminal (1.22M vs 388.3K), Daily active wallets per trading terminal (41.0K vs 11.2K). GMGN wins on Average swap size per trading terminal ($57.39 vs $41.34), Trading terminal fill quality 2026 (348 bps vs 404 bps), Trading terminal execution quality 2026 (250 bps vs 321 bps). Data as of 2026-11-13 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h8 shared benchmarks
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.

GMGN logo
GMGN

GMGN is a Solana and EVM memecoin trading terminal combining wallet tracking, smart money copy trading and a Telegram bot. It routes swaps through pump.fun and DEX pools with a configurable slippage and fee.

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$50.53M$374.92M$1.94B$438.0K$3.18M$16.88M0.88%0.88%0.90%
GMGN$22.28M$163.84M$825.76M$232.6K$1.72M$8.56M1.04%1.05%1.04%
View
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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

Leads

0.88 %

p99
0.88%
rank
#4
samples
438,045

GMGN

Trails

1.04 %

p99
1.04%
rank
#6
samples
232,618

Per chain

ChainAxiomGMGN
Solana0.88%1.08%
Observed take rate
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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

Trails

$41.34

p99
$41.34
rank
#6
samples
1,222,337

GMGN

Leads

$57.39

p99
$57.39
rank
#3
samples
388,287

Per chain

ChainAxiomGMGN
Solana$40.88$49.75
BNB Chain$73.34$61.31
Robinhood Chain$116.97$78.32
Arc$56.57$12.87
Avg swap size
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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

1.22M

p99
1.22M
rank
#1
samples
50,525,500

GMGN

Trails

388.3K

p99
388.3K
rank
#4
samples
22,284,900

Per chain

ChainAxiomGMGN
Solana1.21M219.7K
BNB Chain5,284137.4K
Robinhood Chain2,70313.5K
Arc2926
Swap transactions 24h
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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

ProviderActive wallets 24hSwaps per walletVolume per wallet
Axiom41.0K30$1,208.53
GMGN11.2K20$975.20
View
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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$50.53M$374.92M$1.94B30.3%30.8%32.9%5667
GMGN$22.28M$163.84M$825.76M13.4%13.5%14.0%101,196
View
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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
Axiom404 bps84.0 bps8.13 bps133 bps2.98%
GMGN348 bps98.9 bps16.6 bps126 bps2.05%
View
Axiomn/aGMGNn/a

Random sample (1,000 a day per Solana row, 6,000 per EVM row) 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
Axiom321 bps404 bps84.0 bps8.13 bps133 bps
GMGN250 bps348 bps98.9 bps16.6 bps126 bps
View
Axiomn/aGMGNn/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 GMGN: which one is better?

Axiom and GMGN are compared on 8 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Axiom leads on Trading terminal leaderboard. GMGN leads on Average swap size per trading terminal. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which has the higher daily volume, Axiom or GMGN?

On the Trading terminal leaderboard benchmark, Axiom leads at $50.53M versus GMGN at $22.28M. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

Which has the higher avg swap size, Axiom or GMGN?

On the Average swap size per trading terminal benchmark, GMGN leads at $57.39 versus Axiom at $41.34. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Axiom vs GMGN 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.