Hyperliquid vs GMX: Fees, Execution & Holding Costs

Hyperliquid vs GMX compares an order book with oracle-priced liquidity pools. Hyperliquid matches buy and sell orders on HyperCore, part of its own blockchain. GMX uses separate GM pools to back positions. The useful choice depends on execution, holding costs, collateral, and the market you need.

Execution and order controls

A Hyperliquid market order fills against resting orders. Its execution price depends on the bid-ask spread and available depth. A limit order controls the acceptable price, but it may remain unfilled. The Hyperliquid order guide covers these controls.

GMX uses a price oracle with separate buy and sell prices. Net price impact can apply when you decrease or close a position. GMX supports limit orders, take-profit orders, and stop-loss orders. A trigger does not guarantee execution before liquidation during a rapid price move. The GMX order guide explains its price and trigger rules.

Trading fees on a $100,000 round trip

This example opens $100,000 of notional value and closes the same $100,000. It uses base fees without account discounts or added interface charges. Notional value is the full position value, not the margin deposit.

Hyperliquid charges 0.045% per taker fill at its base tier. Two fills cost $90: $100,000 × 0.00045 × 2. Its base maker fee is 0.015%. Account tiers and builder markets can use different rates. See the Hyperliquid fee schedule.

GMX charges 0.04% or 0.06% for each open or close on most markets. The rate depends on the change in long and short imbalance. Two $100,000 actions cost $80–$120 in position fees. Some traditional-asset markets use different schedules. See the GMX fee schedule.

These are trading fees only. Spread, slippage, net price impact, funding, borrowing, swaps, and network costs are separate. The fee ranges overlap, so they do not establish an overall cost winner.

Funding and holding costs

Both venues can charge or credit funding. GMX also charges borrowing to the side with larger open interest. Borrowing depends on pool use, accrues per second, and appears as an hourly rate. Its funding and borrowing rules do not support a fixed typical holding cost.

Hyperliquid settles funding each hour. A current rate is not a forecast for the full holding period. A fair comparison uses the same asset, direction, size, and duration. Funding received can offset other costs, but the rate can change before exit.

Liquidity deposits and returns

Liquidity providers supply assets that support trading. GM pool holders receive fees and take exposure to the pool assets and trader results. Profitable traders can reduce the value held by the pool. GM withdrawals also depend on available liquidity. The GMX liquidity guide explains these risks.

Hyperliquidity Provider (HLP) uses market-making and liquidation strategies. Depositors share the results, including losses. Its protocol vault guide specifies a four-day withdrawal lock after each deposit. Neither model offers a fixed return. Compare returns over the same period and include changes in the deposited assets' value.

Chains and account risk

GMX has deployments on Arbitrum and Avalanche. Hyperliquid includes HyperCore for trading and HyperEVM for smart contract applications. Supported assets and transfer routes determine how you move collateral between applications.

Hyperliquid documents bridge, network, liquidity, and oracle risks. GMX publishes audit reports and a bug bounty program, while acknowledging that contract defects can remain. An audit or a longer operating history does not guarantee that funds are safe.

Choose for the planned trade

Hyperliquid provides order-book controls for traders who need resting orders and visible depth. GMX provides pool execution with market-specific funding, borrowing, and net price impact. Check the selected market and collateral before comparing either venue's maximum leverage. The cost comparison tool helps separate execution costs from holding costs.