Axiom vs Phantom

Name: Axiom vs Phantom OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Phantom leads on the only live benchmark. Phantom wins on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard ($24.8K vs $421.62).

Read methodology Last measured Wed, 19 Aug 2026 04:53:35 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

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

Phantom is the leading multi-chain crypto wallet on Solana, Ethereum, and Bitcoin; its Hyperliquid perps tab routes orders with a registered builder code so users trade HL directly from the wallet UI.

Side by side measurements

Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard

Trading

Provider	Builder fees collected (USD)	Volume routed	Users 24h	Effective fee bps	Time since last fill
Axiom	$421.62	$4.22M	206	0.0100%	1.4 min
Phantom	$24.8K	$49.49M	2,726	0.050%	9.8 s

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

Axiom vs Phantom: which one is better?

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

Which is cheaper, Axiom or Phantom?

On the Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard benchmark, Phantom leads at $24.8K versus Axiom at $421.62. 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.

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.