Axiom vs Phantom

Phantom leads on both live benchmarks. Phantom wins on Trading terminal fill quality 2026 (248 bps vs 408 bps), Trading terminal execution quality 2026 (162 bps vs 324 bps). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h2 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.

Phantom logo
Phantom

Phantom is a multi-chain wallet (Solana, Ethereum, Base, Bitcoin) whose in-wallet swap routes through Jupiter or its own router and takes a 0.85 % fee on each trade.

Side by side measurements

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
Axiom408 bps95.9 bps15.7 bps138 bps4.01%
Phantom248 bps84.6 bps9.35 bps99.7 bps2.12%
View
Axiomn/aPhantomn/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
Axiom324 bps407 bps95.9 bps15.7 bps138 bps
Phantom162 bps248 bps84.6 bps9.35 bps99.7 bps
View
Axiomn/aPhantomn/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 Phantom: which one is better?

Axiom and Phantom are compared on 2 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Phantom leads on Trading terminal fill quality 2026. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, Axiom or Phantom?

On the Trading terminal fill quality 2026 benchmark, Phantom leads at 248 bps versus Axiom at 408 bps. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Axiom vs Phantom 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.