BasedBot vs pump.fun

pump.fun leads on all 4 live benchmarks. pump.fun wins on Trading terminal leaderboard ($36.12M vs $2.85M), Trading app daily volume ($36.12M vs $2.85M), Trading terminal fill quality 2026 (284 bps vs 363 bps), Trading terminal execution quality 2026 (268 bps vs 299 bps). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h8 shared benchmarks, 4 measured on both sides
BasedBot logo
BasedBot

BasedBot is a trading bot whose flow is almost entirely on Robinhood Chain, with routing on BNB Chain, Base, Ethereum, Arc, HyperEVM and Avalanche and very little on Solana. Not to be confused with Based App, the Hyperliquid frontend tracked separately.

pump.fun logo
pump.fun

pump.fun is the leading Solana memecoin launchpad. Tokens start on a bonding curve and graduate to PumpSwap (pump.fun's native AMM, launched March 2025) when the curve completes.

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 7dTake rateTake rate 7d
BasedBot$2.85M$23.42M$230.81M$12.8K$102.6K0.45%0.44%
pump.fun$36.12M$247.94M$1.14B$114.6K$499.0K0.34%0.30%
View
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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

BasedBot

No data in window

pump.fun

Trails

0.34 %

p99
0.34%
rank
#1
samples
114,562

Per chain

ChainBasedBotpump.fun
Base0.43%0.95%
Observed take rate
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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

BasedBot

No data in window

pump.fun

Leads

$27.92

p99
$27.92
rank
#8
samples
1,293,565

Per chain

ChainBasedBotpump.fun
BNB Chain$108.80$65.54
Robinhood Chain$133.51$12.69
Base$40.21$54.62
Arc$116.26$25.26
Ethereum$188.24$88.49
HyperEVM$206.27$83.43
Avg swap size
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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

BasedBot

No data in window

pump.fun

Leads

1.29M

p99
1.29M
rank
#2
samples
36,118,400

Per chain

ChainBasedBotpump.fun
BNB Chain5,10114.4K
Robinhood Chain13.7K123.8K
Base6,5443,173
Arc180329
Ethereum8071,606
HyperEVM12145
Swap transactions 24h
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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

BasedBot

No data in window

pump.fun

Leads

54.7K

p99
54.7K
rank
#2
samples
1,293,565

Per chain

ChainBasedBotpump.fun
BNB Chain8924,131
Robinhood Chain2,3414,262
Base6481,523
Arc92218
Ethereum328908
HyperEVM4520
Active wallets 24h
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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
BasedBot$2.85M$23.42M$230.81M1.39%1.48%2.22%7282
pump.fun$36.12M$247.94M$1.14B17.6%15.7%11.0%9156
View
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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
BasedBot363 bps59.4 bps1.92 bps151 bps2.45%
pump.fun284 bps43.5 bps4.71 bps52.5 bps4.65%
View
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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
BasedBot299 bps363 bps59.4 bps1.92 bps151 bps
pump.fun268 bps290 bps43.5 bps4.71 bps52.5 bps
View
BasedBotn/apump.funn/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

BasedBot vs pump.fun: which one is better?

BasedBot and pump.fun are compared on 8 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. pump.fun leads on Trading terminal leaderboard. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which has the higher daily volume, BasedBot or pump.fun?

On the Trading terminal leaderboard benchmark, pump.fun leads at $36.12M versus BasedBot at $2.85M. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the BasedBot vs pump.fun 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.