Cheapest perp DEX, live all-in cost from $1k to $1M on ETH, BTC and SOL
Trading| Provider | All-in cost | All-in at $100k | All-in at $1M |
|---|---|---|---|
| GMX | 0.060% | 0.060% | 0.060% |
| Hyperliquid | 0.046% | 0.050% | 0.054% |
GMX vs Hyperliquid
GMX leads on 1 of 4 shared benchmarks, Hyperliquid on 3. GMX wins on Perp DEX cost invariance (1.000x vs 1.086x). Hyperliquid wins on Cheapest perp DEX, live all-in cost from $1k to $1M on ETH, BTC and SOL (0.046% vs 0.060%), Perp DEX mark price fidelity (0.047% vs 0.075%), Perp DEX security track record (1,022 vs 406).
GMX
Perp DEX on Arbitrum and Avalanche. Pool-based execution against GLP and GM vaults, oracle-priced trades with no orderbook.
Hyperliquid
Onchain perp DEX on the Hyperliquid L1. Fully onchain orderbook with sub-second matching, no off-chain matching engine.
Side by side measurements
Perp DEX cost invariance: all-in bps at $1M vs $1k, live slope ranked
Trading| Provider | Cost slope ($1M / $1k) | $1M fill rate |
|---|---|---|
| GMX | 1.000x | 100.0% |
| Hyperliquid | 1.086x | 73.2% |
Perp DEX mark price fidelity: deviation from CEX spot reference, live
TradingGMX
Trails0.075 %
- p99
- 0.11%
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 2,385
Hyperliquid
Leads0.047 %
- p99
- 0.069%
- rank
- #2
- samples
- 2,385
Per chain
| Chain | GMX | Hyperliquid |
|---|---|---|
| ETH | 0.074% | 0.048% |
| BTC | 0.075% | 0.048% |
| SOL | 0.078% | 0.045% |
Perp DEX security track record: days without a recorded exploit, live
TradingGMX
Trails406
- p99
- 406
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 2,385
Hyperliquid
Leads1,022
- p99
- 1,022
- rank
- #5
- samples
- 2,385
This benchmark counts recorded incidents only. Absence from the registry does not prove a protocol is exploit-free: it means no incident matching the criteria (direct theft or loss of user funds via a security vulnerability) has been documented in the tracked sources as of the registry timestamp shown on each row. The registry is human-curated and updated when a new incident is confirmed. The registry date and source links are embedded in the harness.
Perp DEX asset breadth: non-crypto markets live, forex + stocks + indices + commodities
TradingGMX
No data in window
Hyperliquid
No data in window
Market count reflects the Mobula perp pairs catalog at query time. Only mainnet markets are counted (testnets excluded). Asset class tags (forex, stocks, indices, commodities) are assigned by Mobula's editorial taxonomy and updated when new pairs are listed. Venues not in the Mobula catalog (Hyperliquid, GMX, dYdX, Ostium, Vertex, Paradex, Aster) are monitored separately: their catalogs are crypto-only or verified crypto-only by native API.
Perp DEX liquidation rate: 24h liquidated notional as % of open interest, live
TradingGMX
No data in window
Hyperliquid
Trails1.44 %
- p99
- 2.47%
- rank
- #4
- samples
- 2,386
Frequently asked questions
GMX vs Hyperliquid: which one is better?
GMX and Hyperliquid are compared on 6 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. GMX leads on Perp DEX cost invariance. Hyperliquid leads on Cheapest perp DEX, live all-in cost from $1k to $1M on ETH, BTC and SOL. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is faster, GMX or Hyperliquid?
On the Perp DEX cost invariance benchmark, GMX leads at 1.000x versus Hyperliquid at 1.086x. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is cheaper, GMX or Hyperliquid?
On the Cheapest perp DEX, live all-in cost from $1k to $1M on ETH, BTC and SOL benchmark, Hyperliquid leads at 0.046% versus GMX at 0.060%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the GMX vs Hyperliquid 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.