BONKbot vs Pepeboost

BONKbot leads on both live benchmarks. BONKbot wins on Trading terminal fill quality 2026 (358 bps vs 505 bps), Trading terminal execution quality 2026 (259 bps vs 408 bps). Data as of 2026-10-23 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h2 shared benchmarks

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
BONKbot358 bps99.3 bps25.1 bps158 bps1.03%
Pepeboost505 bps97.4 bps60.4 bps107 bps5.90%
View
BONKbotn/aPepeboostn/a

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.

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
BONKbot259 bps358 bps99.3 bps25.1 bps158 bps
Pepeboost408 bps509 bps97.4 bps60.4 bps107 bps
View
BONKbotn/aPepeboostn/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

BONKbot vs Pepeboost: which one is better?

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

Which is cheaper, BONKbot or Pepeboost?

On the Trading terminal fill quality 2026 benchmark, BONKbot leads at 358 bps versus Pepeboost at 505 bps. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the BONKbot vs Pepeboost 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.

Live data refreshes via ISR within 60 seconds of a new run. Sources are the same Prometheus queries surfaced on the parent benchmark pages.