Perp DEX volume share, live 24h notional ranked
TradingGRVT
Trails$523.60M
- p99
- $597.90M
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 2,880
HYPE
Leads$8.72B
- p99
- $10.61B
- rank
- #1
- samples
- 2,880
GRVT vs HYPE
Split decision: GRVT leads on Most tradable markets on a perp DEX, live count across 14 venues (185 vs 177); HYPE leads on Perp DEX volume share, live 24h notional ranked ($8.72B vs $523.60M).
GRVT
zkSync hybrid CEX/DEX perp venue with privacy-preserving order matching.
HYPE
Onchain perp DEX on the Hyperliquid L1. Fully onchain orderbook with sub-second matching, no off-chain matching engine.
Side by side measurements
Most tradable markets on a perp DEX, live count across 14 venues
TradingGRVT
Leads185
- p99
- 185
- rank
- #7
- samples
- 2,880
HYPE
Trails177
- p99
- 177
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 2,880
Frequently asked questions
GRVT vs HYPE: which one is better?
GRVT and HYPE are compared on 2 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. GRVT leads on Most tradable markets on a perp DEX, live count across 14 venues. HYPE leads on Perp DEX volume share, live 24h notional ranked. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is more active, GRVT or HYPE?
On the Most tradable markets on a perp DEX, live count across 14 venues benchmark, GRVT leads at 185 versus HYPE at 177. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is cheaper, GRVT or HYPE?
On the Perp DEX volume share, live 24h notional ranked benchmark, HYPE leads at $8.72B versus GRVT at $523.60M. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the GRVT vs HYPE 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.