GMX vs Jupiter: Fees & OI Compared

GMX and Jupiter Perps both execute against liquidity pools with oracle reference prices. Neither venue uses a central limit order book. Both can apply price impact based on size or pool balance. GMX uses Chainlink. Jupiter Perps uses Edge by Chaos Labs as its primary oracle, with Chainlink and Pyth as fallback.

The pool mechanics differ in detail. GMX V2 uses isolated GM pools. Each trading pair has its own pool with a long asset and a short asset (typically USDC). The ETH/USD GM pool holds WETH and USDC. Pool health depends on the balance between long and short open interest.

Dynamic fees push traders toward the balancing side: lower fees for trades that help balance the pool, higher fees for trades that tilt it further. Jupiter's JLP is a single multi-asset pool holding BTC, ETH, SOL, USDC, and USDT. All markets draw from this shared pool.

This makes LP deposits simple — one deposit covers all markets — but heavy activity in one market can reduce capacity for others.

Fees are similar but structured differently. GMX charges 0.04% or 0.06% per open or close on most markets. GMX funding and borrowing are separate. The open/close rate adjusts based on pool balance: trades that improve the long/short ratio pay 4 bps; trades that worsen it pay 6 bps.

Jupiter charges a flat 6 bps to open and close, plus its own hourly borrow fee.

Unchanged $100,000 entry and exit notional costs $80-$120 in GMX position fees and $120 in Jupiter position fees. These figures exclude spread, slippage, price impact, funding, borrowing, swaps, and network costs. GMX can be cheaper when you take the pool-balancing side. Jupiter's flat rate is more predictable.

GMX funding can be a charge or a credit. Only the side with larger open interest pays borrowing under its current fee rules. Borrowing accrues per second and the interface displays the rate per hour.

Check the selected pool and direction before estimating the cost of holding a position. Compare that cost with the current Jupiter borrowing quote for the same asset and duration.

Chain-level costs separate the two clearly. Arbitrum gas typically runs $0.01-$0.10 per transaction. Solana costs are under $0.01. For traders who adjust positions often — adding margin, placing multiple orders — Solana's lower base cost adds up over hundreds of transactions per month.

Speed also favors Solana's ~400ms slots over Arbitrum's 250ms-2 second range. But both are fast enough that speed rarely matters for position management.

Market selection favors GMX. GMX lists 30+ perp markets, including mid-cap assets and synthetic markets that do not need native Arbitrum assets. Jupiter Perps lists SOL, ETH, and wBTC in its JLP pool, plus six Beta markets on a separate engine.

For DeFi tokens, newer L1s, or niche markets, GMX offers far more choice. Jupiter's tight focus keeps pool capital across three markets, which limits trader access.

GMX liquidity providers choose individual GM pools, while JLP combines assets in a shared pool. GM returns depend on fees, backing-asset prices, and trader results. The GMX liquidity guide explains these risks.

A comparison of returns needs the same measurement period and a clear account of fees and asset-price changes. Annualized fee income alone cannot establish which deposit performs better.

GMX publishes audit reports and bug bounty details. Its security page names five audit firms: Guardian Audits, ABDK, Certora, Dedaub and Sherlock. In July 2025, an exploit of the retired GMX V1 pool on Arbitrum withdrew about $42 million; GMX V2 was not affected.

Jupiter lists audits of its Perpetuals program from OtterSec, Sec3 and Offside Labs. Audits have defined scopes and do not guarantee that funds are safe. Chain ecosystems differ too: Arbitrum gives GMX access to hundreds of EVM DeFi apps.

Solana gives Jupiter access to its fast-growing DeFi ecosystem and tight ties with the Jupiter DEX aggregator. The chain choice usually comes down to where a trader already has capital.