VS
Hyperliquid vs GMX
A high-performance on-chain order book against the protocol that popularised pool-based perps. A neutral, side-by-side comparison.
| Feature | Hyperliquid | GMX |
|---|---|---|
| Chain | Hyperliquid L1 | Arbitrum / Avalanche |
| Trading model | On-chain CLOB | Liquidity pool + oracle |
| 24h volume | $8.5B | $480M |
| Open interest | $4.2B | $310M |
| Taker fee (from) | 0.035% | ~0.06–0.07% open/close |
| Markets | ~150 | ~45 |
| Order types | Limit + market | Market vs pool |
| Passive LP yield | No | Yes (GLP-style) |
| Best for | Active traders | LPs & swing traders |
| Non-custodial | Yes | Yes |
The short version
Hyperliquid and GMX represent the two dominant designs in DeFi perps. Hyperliquid runs a fully on-chain central limit order book on its own high-performance L1, delivering deep liquidity, tight spreads and the broadest active market list. GMX pioneered the liquidity-pool model, where traders trade against a shared pool at an oracle price and anyone can supply liquidity to earn fees.
For a pure trading experience, Hyperliquid is ahead on volume, fees and markets. GMX's strength is different: it turns liquidity provision into a simple, yield-bearing product and remains reliable for swing traders who hold positions longer.
Which should you use?
If you trade actively and want the deepest book with real limit orders, Hyperliquid is the stronger venue. If you want to provide liquidity passively or prefer a simple pool-based experience for occasional swing trades, GMX is a proven, battle-tested choice on Arbitrum and Avalanche.
Verdict
Hyperliquid wins for active trading depth and fees; GMX wins for passive liquidity provision and simplicity. Match the model to how you actually trade.