Best crypto data API for token metadata, live across Mobula, Codex, Jupiter
AggregatorsJupiter Perps
No data in window
Mobula
Leads48.1 %
- p99
- 51.2%
- rank
- #3
- samples
- 108,799
Field coverage
Jupiter Perpsn/aMobulan/a
Jupiter Perps vs Mobula
Jupiter Perps leads on the only live benchmark. Jupiter Perps wins on Best DEX aggregator for quoting newly-launched tokens (97.3% vs 88.3%). Data as of 2026-09-25 UTC.
Jupiter Perps
Solana swap aggregator. REST APIs for quotes, swap routing, price, and token lists across Solana DEXs.
Mobula
Onchain data aggregator covering 80+ chains. WebSocket fast-trade feed, REST market and metadata, wallet portfolio APIs.
Side by side measurements
Best DEX aggregator for quoting newly-launched tokens
AggregatorsJupiter Perps
Leads97.3 %
- p99
- 97.3%
- rank
- #1
- samples
- 1,391
Mobula
Trails88.3 %
- p99
- 88.3%
- rank
- #2
- samples
- 2,217
Per chain
| Chain | Jupiter Perps | Mobula |
|---|---|---|
| Solana | 97.3% | 83.4% |
Quote coverage
Jupiter Perpsn/aMobulan/a
Coverage means the aggregator returned a non-zero output amount for the probed token. It says nothing about quote quality, price accuracy or transaction success rate. A high score means the routing engine found at least one valid path. Latency is measured separately on evm-quote-latency and solana-dex-quote-latency. The token universe rotates hourly so the score reflects live indexer freshness, not a curated whitelist.
Frequently asked questions
Jupiter Perps vs Mobula: which one is better?
Jupiter Perps and Mobula are compared on 2 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Jupiter Perps leads on Best DEX aggregator for quoting newly-launched tokens. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is more reliable, Jupiter Perps or Mobula?
On the Best DEX aggregator for quoting newly-launched tokens benchmark, Jupiter Perps leads at 97.3% versus Mobula at 88.3%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Jupiter Perps vs Mobula 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.