Hyperliquid vs dYdX vs GMX — The Big Three Compared
This is our independent comparison of Hyperliquid, dYdX, and GMX (2026). Which perp DEX has the lowest fees? How do their security track records actually compare after the 2025 incidents? And which one should you use based on your trading style?
The short answer: Hyperliquid dominates volume and offers the most CEX-like experience. dYdX has the most markets and institutional features. GMX is the simplest but got hacked in 2025. All three had security incidents last year — none are "perfectly safe."
Here's the full breakdown.
Quick Comparison Table
| Feature | Hyperliquid | dYdX | GMX |
|---|---|---|---|
| TVL | $4.6B+ | ~$41M | ~$500M |
| 24h Volume | $5B+ | ~$500M | ~$100M |
| Market Share | ~60% | ~15% | ~8% |
| Maker Fee | 0.015% | 0.01% | 0.05-0.1% |
| Taker Fee | 0.045% | 0.05% | 0.05-0.1% |
| Max Leverage | 50x | 50x | 50x |
| Markets | 100+ | 180+ | 30+ |
| Chain | Own L1 | Cosmos L1 | Arbitrum/Avalanche |
| Passive Yield | HLP (~23% APY) | MegaVault | GLP (~20% APY) |
| 2025 Incidents | Multiple | Chain halt | $42M hack |
| Our Rating | 4.7/5 | 4.3/5 | 4.2/5 |
Hyperliquid — The Volume King
Hyperliquid has captured approximately 60% of the decentralized perpetual market. It's not close.
Why Traders Choose Hyperliquid
- CEX-like experience: Sub-second execution, full orderbook, advanced order types
- Zero gas fees: All transactions are free on the Hyperliquid L1
- Lowest effective fees: 0.015% maker / 0.045% taker at base tier
- Deep liquidity: $5B+ daily volume means tight spreads
- HLP Vaults: Earn ~23% APY providing liquidity, with copy-trading features
The Honest Concerns
Security incidents in 2025:
- March 2025: Near $12M hack (prevented)
- October 2025: $21M drained from a user wallet via private key leak
- November 2025: $4.9M price manipulation attack
- North Korean hackers have targeted the platform
None of these were protocol-level exploits of Hyperliquid's core contracts, but they show the ecosystem attracts sophisticated attackers. The $21M incident was a user's compromised key, not a Hyperliquid vulnerability.
Centralization concerns: The validator set is still relatively small compared to established L1s.
Read our full Hyperliquid Review →
dYdX — The Institutional Choice
dYdX pioneered decentralized perpetuals and remains the most "institutional" option with 180+ markets and its own Cosmos-based blockchain.
Why Traders Choose dYdX
- Most markets: 180+ perpetual pairs, more than any competitor
- Negative maker fees: High-volume traders can earn rebates
- MegaVault: Passive yield through market-making
- Own blockchain: Full control over the stack, USDC fee distribution
- Trading rewards: Earn DYDX tokens while trading
The Honest Concerns
October 2025 chain halt: During high market volatility, the dYdX chain halted completely. All trading, liquidations, and oracle updates stopped. The incident resulted in a $462K compensation payout to affected users.
The chain halt exposed a rare code issue that only manifested under extreme conditions. While dYdX handled the aftermath professionally, it's a reminder that running your own blockchain introduces unique risks.
Lower liquidity: With ~$500M daily volume vs Hyperliquid's $5B+, large orders face more slippage on dYdX.
GMX — The Simple Option (With a Scar)
GMX popularized the "pool-based" perpetuals model where you trade against a shared liquidity pool rather than an orderbook. It's simpler but comes with trade-offs.
Why Traders Choose GMX
- Simplest UX: No orderbook complexity, just swap-like interface
- Oracle pricing: Zero slippage on supported pairs (up to limits)
- GLP yield: ~20% APY for liquidity providers
- Multi-chain: Arbitrum, Avalanche, expanding to Solana
- Established: $277B+ cumulative volume, 728K users
The Honest Concerns
July 2025 $42M hack: GMX v1 suffered a reentrancy exploit that drained $42M from the GLP pool. A whitehat hacker executed the attack and returned the funds after receiving a 10% bounty.
The vulnerability was introduced as a fix for a previous issue and went unaudited. This is concerning because:
- GMX v1 still held significant funds despite v2 being live
- The fix that caused the vulnerability was from 2022
- It took 3 years for anyone to exploit it
GMX handled the aftermath well, but the incident dropped the GMX token 17%.
Higher fees: 0.1% position fees + borrow fees make GMX significantly more expensive than Hyperliquid or dYdX for active traders.
Pool-based limitations: During extreme volatility, the pool can become imbalanced, and you might not get favorable pricing.
Fee Comparison: Real Cost of a $10,000 Trade
Let's calculate actual trading costs:
| Platform | Maker Cost | Taker Cost | Round Trip (Open + Close) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hyperliquid | $1.50 | $4.50 | $6-9 |
| dYdX | $1.00 | $5.00 | $6-10 |
| GMX v2 | ~$5.00 | ~$5.00 | $10-14 + borrow fees |
For $1M monthly volume:
- Hyperliquid: ~$350-450 in fees
- dYdX: ~$400-500 in fees
- GMX: ~$1,000+ in fees
GMX's higher fees are the trade-off for simpler oracle-based execution. For active traders, the cost difference is significant over time.
Security Comparison: The 2025 Reality Check
All three platforms had security-related incidents in 2025:
Hyperliquid
- ⚠️ $4.9M price manipulation (November 2025)
- ⚠️ $21M user wallet drained via key leak (October 2025)
- ✅ Near-hack prevented (March 2025)
- ⚠️ North Korean hacker interest
Verdict: No core protocol exploits, but the ecosystem is a target. User-side security matters.
dYdX
- 🔴 Chain halt during volatility (October 2025) — $462K compensation
- ⚠️ DNS hijacking incident (social engineering)
- ⚠️ Historical deposit contract issue (~$206K stolen)
Verdict: Running your own chain introduces unique failure modes. The halt was serious but handled professionally.
GMX
- 🔴 $42M v1 reentrancy hack (July 2025) — funds returned
- ✅ V2 contracts remain uncompromised
Verdict: The v1 hack was significant but only affected legacy contracts. V2 users weren't impacted.
Honest take: None of these platforms are "perfectly safe." DeFi has risk. Hyperliquid has the best track record for core protocol security, but attracts the most attackers. dYdX had an availability failure. GMX had an actual exploit (on deprecated contracts).
Liquidity & Execution Comparison
Order Book Depth (BTC-PERP, $100K trade)
| Platform | Slippage | Execution Speed |
|---|---|---|
| Hyperliquid | 0.01-0.02% | Sub-second |
| dYdX | 0.03-0.05% | 1-2 seconds |
| GMX | 0% (oracle) | 1-2 seconds |
Hyperliquid's liquidity is unmatched. For large trades ($500K+), the difference becomes more pronounced.
GMX's "zero slippage" is technically true but subject to:
- Position impact fees on large trades
- Pool imbalance during volatility
- Oracle update delays
Passive Yield Comparison
All three offer ways to earn without active trading:
Hyperliquid HLP
- APY: ~23% (variable)
- Risk: Market-making losses, liquidation exposure
- Min deposit: None
- Lockup: None
dYdX MegaVault
- APY: Variable (protocol fee share)
- Risk: Market-making exposure
- Min deposit: None
- Lockup: None
GMX GLP/GM
- APY: ~15-25% (variable)
- Risk: Trader PnL (you lose if traders win)
- Min deposit: None
- Lockup: None
Key difference: HLP and MegaVault are market-making strategies. GLP is counterparty exposure — you profit when traders lose and vice versa.
Who Should Use What?
Choose Hyperliquid If:
- You want the lowest fees and deepest liquidity
- You trade actively and need CEX-like execution
- You want the most markets on a single platform
- You're comfortable with a newer, fast-growing platform
Choose dYdX If:
- You need access to 180+ markets
- You prefer institutional-grade infrastructure
- You want to earn DYDX rewards while trading
- You value the Cosmos ecosystem integration
Choose GMX If:
- You prefer simplicity over advanced features
- You want zero-slippage oracle execution
- You're providing liquidity via GLP
- You trade casually rather than actively
The Verdict
For most traders: Hyperliquid is the best choice in 2026. It has the liquidity, the features, and the fees to compete with centralized exchanges. The security concerns are real but manageable with proper key hygiene.
For market variety: dYdX's 180+ markets give it an edge if you trade altcoin perps. The October chain halt is concerning, but the team responded well.
For simplicity: GMX remains the easiest entry point to perp DEXs, but the $42M hack and higher fees make it harder to recommend over the alternatives.
| Platform | Our Rating | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Hyperliquid | 4.7/5 | Active traders, lowest fees |
| dYdX | 4.3/5 | Market variety, institutions |
| GMX | 4.2/5 | Simplicity, LP yield |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which perp DEX has the lowest fees?
Hyperliquid at 0.015% maker / 0.045% taker, followed by dYdX at 0.01% maker / 0.05% taker. GMX is significantly more expensive at 0.05-0.1% per trade plus borrow fees.
Is Hyperliquid safe after the 2025 incidents?
The core Hyperliquid protocol hasn't been exploited. The $21M incident was a user's compromised private key, not a platform vulnerability. However, the platform attracts sophisticated attackers including North Korean hackers, so user-side security is critical.
What happened to GMX in 2025?
GMX v1 suffered a $42M reentrancy hack in July 2025. A whitehat hacker exploited the vulnerability and returned the funds after receiving a bounty. GMX v2 contracts were not affected.
Why did dYdX chain halt in October 2025?
A rare code issue caused the chain to halt during high market volatility. All trading and liquidations stopped. dYdX compensated affected users with $462K and implemented fixes.
Which platform has the most markets?
dYdX with 180+ perpetual pairs, followed by Hyperliquid with 100+, then GMX with approximately 30 markets.
Can I earn passive yield on these platforms?
Yes. Hyperliquid HLP offers ~23% APY, GMX GLP offers ~15-25% APY, and dYdX MegaVault offers variable yields. All carry risk — you're providing liquidity or taking counterparty exposure.
Check the dexrank for individual reviews: Hyperliquid | dYdX | GMX
Last updated: February 2026
