Axiom vs UnityWallet

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

Axiom leads on the only live benchmark. Axiom wins on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard ($1,906.19 vs $1,062.17).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:35:05 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.

UnityWallet

UnityWallet is a self-custodial wallet with an in-app Hyperliquid perps integration that routes orders through a registered builder code (HL referral code UNITYWALLET).

Side by side measurements

Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard

Trading

Provider	Builder fees collected	Volume routed	Users 24h	Effective fee bps	Time since last fill
Axiom	$1,906.19	$19.06M	483	0.0100%	25.4 s
UnityWallet	$1,062.17	$2.12M	4	0.050%	1.5 h

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 UnityWallet: which one is better?

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

Which is cheaper, Axiom or UnityWallet?

On the Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard benchmark, Axiom leads at $1,906.19 versus UnityWallet at $1,062.17. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Axiom vs UnityWallet 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

Axiom vs Phantom Perps

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.