Jupiter Perps: perpetual dexs rating breakdown
Solana
The second-largest venue by fees at $15.8m over thirty days, and the default way leveraged exposure is taken on Solana. Its pool-based design gives predictable execution with no order-book slippage at the sizes most retail traders use, and the collateral pool is transparent and on-chain.
The second-largest venue by fees at $15.8m over thirty days, and the default way leveraged exposure is taken on Solana. Its pool-based design gives predictable execution with no order-book slippage at the sizes most retail traders use, and the collateral pool is transparent and on-chain.
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 | — | 30% | 7 | 7 | 3 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Depth and where the flow actually is | $15.82m 30-day protocol fees · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$2.51bn value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 25% | 8 | 5 | 2 of 8 | +0.75 |
| What a position really costs | — | 22% | 6 | 6.5 | 5 of 8 | -0.11 |
| Who holds the collateral | — | 15% | 7 | 7 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Markets and access | — | 8% | 4 | 6 | 8 of 8 | -0.16 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by depth and where the flow actually is, worth +0.75 points against the median
What happens when the rules cost the house money: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 3rd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 5.
Depth and where the flow actually is: 8/10
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 8 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 2nd of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.75 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
What a position really costs: 6/10
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 6 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 5th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.11 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 5.
Who holds the collateral: 7/10
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 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Markets and access: 4/10
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 4 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 8th of 8 among perpetual dexs on this criterion. At a 8% weight that is 0.16 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Depth and where the flow actually is | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hyperliquid | 10 | Ahead by 2 on depth and where the flow actually is. |
| 2 | Lighter | 6 | Behind by 2 on depth and where the flow actually is. |
| 4 | GMX | 5 | Behind by 3 on depth and where the flow actually is. |
| 5 | dYdX | 4 | Behind by 4 on depth and where the flow actually is. |
Questions about this score
Who is on the other side of a Jupiter Perps trade?
+
The liquidity pool, and therefore its depositors. There is no order book matching you against another trader: you trade against pooled capital, so when traders win collectively the pool loses. That is a coherent design with predictable execution at retail size, and it means a sustained one-directional move is a risk to the pool rather than a matching problem.
What happens to leveraged positions during a Solana outage?
+
Nothing settles, including liquidations. That is the specific danger of leverage on a chain with an outage history: positions that should close cannot, prices move while the network is unavailable, and the market reopens with the consequences. It is a liveness dependency a trader takes on alongside every other risk in the position.