SKIP TO CONTENT
Perpetual DEXUpdated Feb 13, 2026

Hyperliquid vs GMX

Compare Hyperliquid vs GMX perpetual exchanges. Analyze order book vs pool model, fees, liquidity, and trading experience.

Feature Comparison

FeatureHyperliquidGMX
Model
Order Book (CLOB)
Pool-basedTie
Trading Fees
0.05% takerWinner
0.1%
Slippage
Variable
ZeroWinner
LP Yields
HLP variable
15-30% historicalWinner
Execution Speed
Sub-secondWinner
Fast
Order Types
Full suiteWinner
Basic
Max Leverage
50x
100xWinner
Markets
50+Winner
20+
Chain
Own L1
Arbitrum/AvalancheTie
Track Record
Since 2023
Since 2021Winner

Hyperliquid vs GMX: Perpetual DEX Comparison 2026

Hyperliquid and GMX represent fundamentally different approaches to on-chain perpetual trading. Hyperliquid uses a traditional order book while GMX uses a liquidity pool model. This comparison examines the trade-offs.

Architectural Differences

Hyperliquid operates a fully on-chain central limit order book (CLOB). Traders place limit and market orders that match against each other, similar to traditional exchanges. GMX uses a unique pool-based model where traders trade against GLP/GM liquidity pools. There's no order book. Trades execute against the pool at oracle prices.

Trading Experience

Hyperliquid Trading

  • Familiar order book interface
  • Limit orders, stop losses, take profits
  • Real-time order matching
  • Traditional trading experience
  • Price discovery through order book

GMX Trading

  • Pool-based execution
  • Zero slippage on entry/exit
  • Oracle-based pricing
  • Simple execution
  • No price impact on trades

Liquidity Models

Hyperliquid Liquidity

  • Order book depth from makers
  • HLP vault provides backstop
  • Dynamic spreads
  • Market maker participation

GMX Liquidity

  • GLP/GM pools provide liquidity
  • LPs earn trading fees
  • Pool utilization matters
  • No market makers needed

Fee Comparison

Hyperliquid Fees

  • Maker: 0.02%
  • Taker: 0.05%
  • No funding for makers
  • Position fees standard

GMX Fees

  • Open/Close: 0.1%
  • Higher base fees
  • Borrowing fees for positions
  • Fees go to LPs

GMX has higher base fees; Hyperliquid is generally cheaper.

Yield Opportunities

Hyperliquid Yield

  • HLP vault for LP returns
  • Market making participation
  • Copy trading vaults
  • Variable returns

GMX Yield

  • GLP/GM pool yields (15-30% historically)
  • Escrowed GMX staking
  • Real yield from trading fees
  • Established LP opportunity

GMX's LP yields have been consistently attractive.

Conclusion

Hyperliquid wins for active traders seeking order book execution and lower fees. GMX wins for LPs seeking yield and traders wanting simple, zero-slippage execution.

Use Hyperliquid for sophisticated trading; use GMX for LP yields and simple execution.

Monitor your DeFi positions on Fensory.

Risk Analysis

**Model Risk**: Order books can have liquidity gaps; pools can face utilization issues. **LP Risk**: GMX LPs face trader PnL exposure; Hyperliquid HLP has similar dynamics. **Oracle Risk**: GMX relies heavily on oracles for pricing; manipulation is a risk. **Smart Contract Risk**: Different architectures have different vulnerabilities. **Liquidity Risk**: Both depend on sufficient liquidity providers.

Verdict

Winner: Hyperliquid for active traders seeking lower fees and order book execution. GMX wins for LPs seeking yield and traders wanting simple, guaranteed execution. The models serve different needs. Choose based on whether you're primarily trading or seeking LP yields.

Find the best opportunities on Hyperliquid and GMX.

Track live yields, compare protocols, and build your DeFi portfolio with Fensory.

GET EARLY ACCESSArrow right