Ethereum Perp Venue Comparison (2026)
Short answer: This list uses an editorial venue-level liquidity score, with the recorded taker fee as a tiebreaker. It does not measure ETH order-book depth.
Ethereum Perp Venue Comparison — ranked by editorial venue liquidity score
| # | Protocol | Editorial venue liquidity score | Fee model | Max lev | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hyperliquid | 9.5/10 | 0.015% / 0.045% | 40x | 9.2/10 |
| 2 | dYdX | 9/10 | 0.01% / 0.05% | 50x | 9/10 |
| 3 | tradeXYZ | 8.5/10 | 0.03% / 0.09% | 50x | 7/10 |
| 4 | GMX | 8.5/10 | 0.04% or 0.06% when opening and again when closing; rate depends on whether the action improves or worsens pool imbalance | 100x | 8.5/10 |
| 5 | Orderly Network | 8/10 | 0% / 0.03% | 50x | 7.8/10 |
| 6 | Jupiter Perps | 8/10 | 0.06% when opening and again when closing; base position fee; price impact, borrowing, swap, and network costs are separate | 250x | 8.3/10 |
| 7 | Lighter | 7.5/10 | 0% / 0% | 50x | 7.5/10 |
| 8 | Bluefin | 7.5/10 | 0.01% / 0.035% | 50x | 8/10 |
| 9 | Apex Omni | 7.5/10 | 0.02% / 0.05% | 100x | 8/10 |
| 10 | Paradex | 7/10 | 0% / 0% | 50x | 7.5/10 |
| 11 | Variational | 7/10 | 0% / 0% | 50x | 7.5/10 |
| 12 | SynFutures | 7/10 | 0.01% / 0.02% | 100x | 7.8/10 |
Ranked from the PerpFinder venue registry. Open a venue review for its recorded review date. For order-book venues, the cost comparison tool estimates the trading fee, half-spread, and slippage. Funding costs are separate. Check funding rates for the market and holding period.
What the Ethereum comparison measures
The table sorts venues by PerpFinder's editorial venue-level liquidity score, then uses the recorded taker fee as a tiebreaker. The inputs describe the venue as a whole. They do not measure ETH order-book depth or current execution quality.
The Ethereum and Bitcoin tables use the same scores and ordering. Use the cost comparison tool with ETH selected for an Ethereum order. Compare ETH funding rates separately for the position direction and holding period.
Check ETH execution at your size
Choose ETH, the order size, and the buy or sell side before comparing costs. Check the contract and collateral supported by each venue. A venue can use different limits and fee rules for different markets.
For an order-book trade, the entry estimate includes the trading fee, half-spread, and slippage beyond the best quote. It excludes funding during the holding period. The cost methodology describes missing-data and incomplete-fill limits.
A pool-based ETH trade can use a position fee and market-specific price impact. Read the venue's quote and fee explanation before comparing it with an order-book estimate.
An illustrative ETH funding calculation
Assume an $80,000 ETH position pays a fixed funding rate of 0.02% per hour for 48 hours. The assumed payment is $80,000 × 0.0002 × 48 = $768. This is an arithmetic example, not an observed market rate or a forecast.
The example excludes entry and exit costs. Future rates can change, so a fixed-rate scenario does not establish the payment you will make. Check the rate type and interval in the funding methodology.
Use asset data separately from venue scores
An editorial venue score does not establish ETH depth, ETH open interest, or an ETH funding advantage. Read the venue review for the score's context. Use market-specific observations for the trade itself.
If you plan a trade with both BTC and ETH positions, inspect each market separately. Check each leg's size, execution cost, and funding exposure. One venue-wide score cannot establish the cost or liquidity of both legs.