GMX: perpetual dexs rating breakdown
V2, 4 chains
The most conservative venue here, and the one whose rules are hardest for anyone to change: pooled liquidity, oracle-priced execution, no operator with a delist button, and a four-year record with no forced settlement of user positions. If your objection to this category is “somebody can rewrite my trade”, GMX is the answer to it.
The most conservative venue here, and the one whose rules are hardest for anyone to change: pooled liquidity, oracle-priced execution, no operator with a delist button, and a four-year record with no forced settlement of user positions. If your objection to this category is “somebody can rewrite my trade”, GMX is the answer to it.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What happens when the rules cost the house money | none on record forced settlements of user positions · sourced · 2026-08-27 | 30% | 8 | 7 | 1 of 8 | +0.30 |
| Depth and where the flow actually is | $1.87m 30-day protocol fees · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$212m value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 5 | 5 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| What a position really costs | — | 22% | 5 | 6.5 | 8 of 8 | -0.33 |
| Who holds the collateral | — | 15% | 9 | 7 | 1 of 8 | +0.30 |
| Markets and access | — | 8% | 6 | 6 | 2 of 8 | 0.00 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what a position really costs, worth -0.33 points against the median
What happens when the rules cost the house money: 8/10
Every intervention on record: forced settlements, delistings, socialised losses, auto-deleveraging events and oracle changes, with dates and amounts. Hyperliquid settled an entire manipulated market at a chosen price and delisted it by validator vote in March 2025, then reimbursed users from a foundation. That is a specific, documented answer to “who decides”, and it is worth more than any decentralisation claim on a landing page.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 1st of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is 0.30 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 5.
Depth and where the flow actually is: 5/10
Collateral and vault value locked at a stated timestamp, alongside thirty days of protocol fees as the closest public proxy for real flow. Depth on a perpetual venue is not a comfort — it is what decides whether your stop fills near your stop.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 4th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What a position really costs: 5/10
Published taker and maker fees, plus the funding mechanism as documented — and then our own division: thirty days of protocol fees, annualised, per dollar of collateral held. That last number is the intensity of extraction at each venue, and no fee page shows it.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 8th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.33 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Who holds the collateral: 9/10
Whether margin sits in a contract you can verify or on a company balance sheet, who runs the sequencer or validator set, and how upgrades and market listings are authorised. A venue where a small set of operators can pause, list or settle is a custodian with extra steps.
Scored 9 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 1st of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is 0.30 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Markets and access: 6/10
Markets listed, chains supported, and the practical route in and out — a venue that only accepts one collateral asset on one chain is narrower than its market count suggests.
Scored 6 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 2nd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | What a position really costs | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Lighter | 9 | Ahead by 4 on what a position really costs. |
| 3 | Jupiter Perps | 6 | Ahead by 1 on what a position really costs. |
| 5 | dYdX | 6 | Ahead by 1 on what a position really costs. |
| 6 | Drift | 6 | Ahead by 1 on what a position really costs. |
Questions about this score
Can GMX close or settle my position the way Hyperliquid did with JELLY?
+
There is no mechanism for it and no instance of it in four years. Markets are pooled and oracle-priced with no operator delist function, which is precisely the difference this rating is built to surface. That guarantee costs depth: the venue collects one thirty-fourth of Hyperliquid's fees, and a thinner book is a direct trading cost.
How does GMX pricing work?
+
Positions are opened and closed against pooled liquidity at oracle prices rather than against a matching order book, which removes slippage on entry and shifts the risk to the accuracy of the oracle. On major markets that works well; on smaller ones oracle-priced execution has been gamed before, across this whole design family.