Exchanges & Trading
Best Perpetual DEXs
On-chain leverage. Performance weighting is the highest of any category here, because a perp venue that degrades under volatility liquidates its users at exactly the wrong moment.
All 4 compared
Sorted by computed score. Column headers carry this category's weighting; the highest score in each pillar is marked. Tap a name for the full assessment.
| # | Service | Score | Custody25% | Cost25% | Regulation5% | Performance35% | Access10% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | GMXOracle-priced execution against pooled liquidity, with published fees | 7.2Solid | 6.6 | 7.4 | 5.6 | 7.6 | 7.9 |
| 02 | Gains NetworkHigh leverage on synthetic markets, including non-crypto pairs | 7.0Solid | 6.8 | 7.2 | 5.2 | 7.0 | 7.4 |
| 03 | dYdXA long public record and a fully open-source, community-governed chain−1 penalty | 5.9Mixed | 7.4 — best in table | 8.0 | 6.2 — best in table | 7.0 | 7.4 |
| 04 | HyperliquidOn-chain order-book trading that feels like a centralised venue−1 penalty | 5.8Mixed | 6.8 | 8.7 — best in table | 5.4 | 8.0 — best in table | 8.2 — best in table |
The assessments
what each score rests on- 017.2/10
GMX
Best for oracle-priced execution against pooled liquidity, with published fees
Company file: GMX, owners, incidents →Solid◆ Sources checked · 27 Sept 2026You trade against liquidity pools at an oracle price rather than into an order book. V2 splits liquidity into isolated GM pools and charges price impact on most markets under a published formula. The old V1 was drained of about $42M on 9 Jul 2025 through an unreviewed 2022 fix and shut down; recovered funds were returned to GLP holders as claimable GLV.
Pillar scores
- Custody & Security25%
- 6.6
- Cost & Fee Transparency25%
- 7.4
- Regulation & Legal Standing5%
- 5.6
- Performance & Reliability35%
- 7.6
- Access & Support10%
- 7.9
Strengths
- Size is priced by a published formula rather than by whatever depth is on a book
- V2 isolates liquidity per market in GM pools
- Recovered V1 funds were returned to GLP holders under a published plan
Against it
- V1 was drained of about $42M on 9 Jul 2025 through a fix that never went through review
- Borrowing costs on held positions are the real expense and are underplayed
- Liquidity providers are the counterparty to every trader, which is not obvious to newcomers
Full assessment of GMX →solid · 7.2/10 - 027.0/10
Gains Network
Best for high leverage on synthetic markets, including non-crypto pairs
Company file: Gains Network, owners, incidents →Solid◆ Sources checked · 27 Sept 2026Synthetic exposure settled against one gToken vault per collateral (gUSDC, gDAI, gETH and others), with leverage and market coverage, forex and commodities included, that nothing else in this table matches. The leverage on offer is the reason to be cautious. GNS buybacks have been paused since the June 2026 vote that handed the protocol to a new operating team.
Pillar scores
- Custody & Security25%
- 6.8
- Cost & Fee Transparency25%
- 7.2
- Regulation & Legal Standing5%
- 5.2
- Performance & Reliability35%
- 7.0
- Access & Support10%
- 7.4
Strengths
- Market coverage well beyond crypto, including forex and commodities
- Risk split across separate vaults per collateral rather than one pool
- No exploit or loss of user funds on record
Against it
- Up to 1000x on forex is enough leverage to lose collateral in a single tick
- The last-resort vault backstop is GNS dilution
- GNS buybacks paused since June 2026; offering synthetic regulated-asset exposure without a licence is a real legal exposure
Full assessment of Gains Network →solid · 7.0/10 - 035.9/10
dYdX
Best for a long public record and a fully open-source, community-governed chain
Company file: dYdX, owners, incidents →Mixed◆ Sources checked · 27 Sept 2026One of the first on-chain perpetuals venues, live since 2017 and now on its own Cosmos chain. Its chain halted for 7h43m during the 10 Oct 2025 crash, and on 30 Jun 2026 its developer moved its focus to Arcus on Robinhood Chain, saying v4 will continue to be supported. A long record, with the builders now elsewhere.
Pillar scores
- Custody & Security25%
- 7.4
- Cost & Fee Transparency25%
- 8.0
- Regulation & Legal Standing5%
- 6.2
- Performance & Reliability35%
- 7.0
- Access & Support10%
- 7.4
Deductions applied
- −1.5Withdrawals halted. Withdrawals were suspended in the last 12 months outside a pre-announced maintenance window.
Strengths
- Live since 2017, one of the longest records in on-chain derivatives
- Open-source chain governed by DYDX stakers
- Published fee tiers with no funding-rate markup
Against it
- Chain halted for 7h43m during the 10 Oct 2025 crash, with liquidations on stale prices afterwards
- Developer focus moved to Arcus on Robinhood Chain on 30 Jun 2026
- Thin depth outside major markets
Full assessment of dYdX →mixed · 5.9/10 - 045.8/10
Hyperliquid
Best for on-chain order-book trading that feels like a centralised venue
Company file: Hyperliquid, owners, incidents →Mixed◆ Sources checked · 27 Sept 2026A purpose-built chain running a genuine on-chain order book, with execution closer to a centralised exchange than anything else in this category. The record has dents: validators overrode the JELLY market price in March 2025, the 10 Oct 2025 crash triggered its first cross-margin auto-deleveraging, and POPCAT manipulation in November 2025 left HLP depositors with about $4.9M of bad debt.
Pillar scores
- Custody & Security25%
- 6.8
- Cost & Fee Transparency25%
- 8.7
- Regulation & Legal Standing5%
- 5.4
- Performance & Reliability35%
- 8.0
- Access & Support10%
- 8.2
Deductions applied
- −2.0Unrecovered user-fund loss. Users lost funds in the last 24 months and were not made whole. Applies once, regardless of cause.
Strengths
- Order-book execution closer to a centralised venue than any other on-chain option here
- Published fees: 0.045% taker, 0.015% maker at the entry tier, no protocol cut on funding
- Took more than $10B of liquidations on 10 Oct 2025 without bad debt
Against it
- Validators overrode the JELLY market price in March 2025, a trust assumption the chain makes quietly
- HLP depositors absorbed about $4.9M of bad debt from POPCAT manipulation in November 2025
- Thin, high-leverage markets have been manipulated more than once despite later open-interest caps
Full assessment of Hyperliquid →mixed · 5.8/10
Leverage on-chain, where the venue that degrades under stress does not merely inconvenience you — it liquidates you at the worst possible price. Performance carries thirty-five per cent here, joint-highest on the site, and inside that pillar what we are really measuring is oracle latency and liquidation behaviour during the sharpest drawdown of the review period.
Frequently asked questions
Why is performance weighted so heavily here?+
Because in a leveraged product, latency is not an inconvenience — it is a loss. A venue whose oracle lags during a fast move liquidates positions that would have survived on an accurate price. That is a direct transfer from the user to whoever is on the other side, and no amount of good fee design compensates for it.
Is on-chain leverage safer than a centralised exchange?+
The custody risk is lower and the technical risk is higher. You cannot be frozen out by a company decision, but you can be liquidated through a chain halt or an oracle that was gamed. Pick your failure mode deliberately rather than assuming on-chain means safe.
Should high leverage lower a score?+
Availability of leverage does not, on its own. What we mark down is a design where the venue’s solvency depends on that leverage behaving — a vault backing very high leverage with its token as the last-resort backstop is a structural exposure, not a user preference.
Assessed by
Blockchain Security Researcher · September 27, 2026