BullpenFi vs Wunder

Name: BullpenFi vs Wunder OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

BullpenFi leads on the only live benchmark. BullpenFi wins on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard ($3,174.04 vs $353.65).

Read methodology Last measured Sat, 22 Aug 2026 03:16:05 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

BullpenFi

Non custodial multi platform trading terminal unifying Hyperliquid perps, Polymarket prediction markets, and Solana spot in one app.

Wunder

Automated crypto trading platform with grid, DCA, signal, and TradingView bots integrated with Hyperliquid via WalletConnect.

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
BullpenFi	$3,174.04	$10.82M	128	0.029%	34.5 s
Wunder	$353.65	$1.05M	141	0.034%	37.4 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

BullpenFi vs Wunder: which one is better?

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

Which is cheaper, BullpenFi or Wunder?

On the Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard benchmark, BullpenFi leads at $3,174.04 versus Wunder at $353.65. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the BullpenFi vs Wunder 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.