Compare crypto exchanges
Side-by-side fees, leverage, liquidity and bonuses across centralized and decentralized exchanges. Pick the right platform for your trading style.
Head-to-head comparisons
39 of 39 pairs
One measured cost table for the three perp DEXs, with fees, leverage, custody, funding and incidents.
Hyperliquid and Lighter side by side: measured cost of BTC and ETH market buys at three sizes, base fees, hourly funding, open interest and exit paths.
Aster vs Hyperliquid with stored order-book costs for BTC and ETH, base fees from each fee page, funding intervals of 8 hours and 1 hour, and audit scope.
Lighter vs edgeX: two Ethereum-anchored perp DEXs with documented exit paths. Stored BTC and ETH costs at $10k, $100k and $1M, fees, funding and leverage.
Hyperliquid vs edgeX: measured market-buy cost for BTC and ETH, base taker fees of 0.045% on both, leverage limits, funding intervals and how each holds deposits.
Aster charges 0.04% taker, and Lighter standard accounts pay no fee. Compare funding every hour with funding every 8 hours, plus stored BTC and ETH costs.
Hyperliquid vs Extended: Hyperliquid charges 0.045% taker and Extended charges 0.025% at the base tier. Measured BTC and ETH costs at three sizes and funding.
edgeX vs Aster: stored order-book cost of BTC and ETH buys, the fee each venue publishes, the funding interval, and what the audits cover.
GRVT and Hyperliquid both charge 0.045% taker at the base tier, and GRVT pays makers a rebate. Stored BTC and ETH costs, funding intervals and custody.
Hyperliquid vs Binance futures: stored cost of BTC and ETH market buys on both books, base fees and discounts, hourly against 8-hour funding, and custody.
Hyperliquid vs Bybit fees: what a 1 basis point taker gap costs at $10k, $100k and $1M, the measured BTC and ETH market-buy cost, funding and open interest.
Hyperliquid vs OKX perpetuals: the OKX futures ladder of August 2026 against Hyperliquid tier 0, measured BTC and ETH market-buy cost and funding periods.
MEXC charges 0.02% taker on BTCUSDT and Hyperliquid charges 0.045%. The fee gap at $10,000 and $100,000, measured BTC and ETH cost, access and custody.
Bitget charges 0.06% taker at its lowest futures tier and Hyperliquid charges 0.045%. Measured BTC and ETH cost, leverage, licences and account access.
Kraken sells perps through licensed firms in the US and EEA, and Hyperliquid restricts US persons. Taker fees of 0.05% and 0.045%, and hourly funding on both.
Coinbase International charges 0.04% taker and Hyperliquid charges 0.045%, but Hyperliquid makers pay less. Measured cost, US access and the October 2026 move.
MEXC charges 0.02% taker on BTCUSDT and Bitget charges 0.06%. The fee gap in dollars, measured BTC and ETH cost, leverage caps, operators and reserves.
MEXC charges 0.02% taker on BTCUSDT and OKX charges 0.05% to regular users. Measured BTC and ETH cost, OKX regional products, leverage and reserve reports.
Kraken charges 0.05% taker and Bybit charges 0.055%, with the same 0.02% maker fee. Hourly against 8-hour funding, UK and EEA access and measured cost.
OKX and Kraken both list 0.02% maker and 0.05% taker at the entry tier, so the order book decides the cost. US and EEA products, funding and leverage.
Bitget and KuCoin both charge 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker on BTC futures at the base tier. Measured cost, the KuCoin US plea, loss cover and EEA access.
Aster charges 0.04% taker and dYdX charges 0.05% at the base tier. Hourly against 8-hour funding, who runs each chain, audit scope and measured cost.
Binance and Bybit compared on futures fees, leverage, security, and sign-up bonuses. We break down the real cost differences so you can pick the right exchange.
Binance vs OKX on futures fees, leverage, Web3 tools, portfolio margin, and bonuses. Both charge 0.02%/0.05%, but Binance caps leverage at 150x versus OKX's 100x, so the decision also weighs BNB discounts vs OKX's Web3 wallet.
Bybit vs OKX on futures fees, leverage, copy trading, Web3 tools, and bonuses. OKX is cheaper on taker fees; Bybit has a $30,000 welcome bonus and better copy trading.
Binance vs Bitget on trading fees, leverage, copy trading, and bonuses. Binance is cheaper on fees; Bitget has the best copy trading platform and a $6,200 welcome bonus.
Binance vs MEXC on futures fees, leverage, pair coverage, and bonuses. MEXC has 0% maker fees, 500x leverage, and 600+ pairs. Binance has unmatched liquidity and regulation.
Bybit vs Bitget on copy trading, futures fees, leverage, and bonuses. Both are copy trading powerhouses. Bybit has lower fees and a bigger bonus; Bitget has smarter filtering. Both cap leverage at 150x.
OKX vs Bitget on fees, portfolio margin, copy trading, leverage, and Web3 tools. OKX is for self-directed traders who want capital efficiency; Bitget is for copy trading.
Binance vs Kraken on trading fees, security, regulatory compliance, leverage, and bonuses. Binance has more products and leverage. Kraken has never been hacked since 2011 and is licensed in the US.
Bybit vs MEXC on futures fees, bonuses, leverage, and altcoin coverage. MEXC has 0% maker fees and 600+ pairs. Bybit has a $30,000 bonus and better copy trading.
Compare Binance and KuCoin futures fees, leverage limits, recorded market counts, headline bonus limits, and built-in trading tools.
Hyperliquid and dYdX are the two largest decentralized perpetual futures exchanges by volume and open interest. Here is how they compare on fees, speed, leverage, and decentralization.
Hyperliquid uses an order book, GMX uses liquidity pools. Two different approaches to perp trading with real differences in fees, execution, and LP yield.
How dYdX's Cosmos appchain order book stacks up against GMX's Arbitrum-based liquidity pool model for perpetual futures trading.
Hyperliquid on its custom L1 versus Jupiter Perps on Solana. How trading performance, fees, and ecosystem access differ between these two perp platforms.
GMX on Arbitrum and Jupiter Perps on Solana both use oracle-priced pools but differ in fee structures, pool design, and LP yields.
dYdX's full order book on its Cosmos appchain versus Jupiter Perps' simple oracle-priced pool on Solana. Two opposite approaches to decentralized perps.
Hyperliquid's purpose-built L1 order book versus ApeX Omni's StarkEx-powered multi-chain exchange. Fees, liquidity depth, and multi-chain deposits compared.
Compare any two venues
Per-metric winners only — no venue is best at everythingPick two venues to build the side-by-side. Registry fields render at once; the live volume, open-interest and funding rows load from the public API after that.
Why compare crypto exchanges
Fee structures vary widely across exchanges — and for active traders, these differences hit your P&L directly. A platform charging 0.02% maker / 0.05% taker costs 2.5x more per round-trip than one with zero maker fees and 0.02% taker fees. Over thousands of trades, that gap can mean thousands of dollars in lost edge. Our recorded fee table breaks down the exact numbers.
Beyond fees, compare liquidity depth, available leverage, supported pairs, and whether the platform is centralized or decentralized. CEXes generally offer more pairs and deeper books; DEXes give you self-custody and permissionless access. Some traders split volume across both to balance speed with security. Use our fee calculator to model your actual costs on each platform.
Each head-to-head exchange comparison covers fees, leverage, sign-up bonuses, supported features, and security. For a broader ranking, check our best perp DEX picks for 2026.