Axiom vs Maestro

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.