CMI vs GalaxyDigital

Name: CMI vs GalaxyDigital OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

CMI vs GalaxyDigital on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmark, awaiting live measurements.

Read methodology Last measured Fri, 18 Sep 2026 00:27:48 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

CMI

GalaxyDigital

Side by side measurements

Hyperliquid validator leaderboard: live net APR, uptime, commission

Blockchains

CMI

Leads

2.23 %

p99: 2.23%
rank: #3
samples: 785,118,000

GalaxyDigital

No data in window

net_yield = predictedApr.day x uptimeFraction from /info validatorSummaries. No MEV layer at the validator level on Hyperliquid; the centralised sequencer captures order-flow value upstream. Jailed validators land at 0 bps regardless of published APR. APRs cluster at 200 to 225 bps across the active set; commission rate is the primary differentiator for delegators.

Frequently asked questions

CMI vs GalaxyDigital: which one is better?

CMI and GalaxyDigital are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. See the live table on this page for every metric.

How is the CMI vs GalaxyDigital 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.