Provider at a glance
- Category
- Perp House Vaults
- Official website
- hyperliquid.gitbook.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 56 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Hyperliquid HLP
Hyperliquid's market-making vault
Perp House Vaults
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 9 perp house vaults in the published ranking
56
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Hyperliquid HLP right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?6/10 here; gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) scores 7
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?2/10 here; gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) scores 6
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?2/10 here; Jupiter JLP scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East & North Africa, Australia, Canada.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best perp house vault shows where it lands for you.
What will Hyperliquid HLP cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Hyperliquid HLP?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Hyperliquid HLP
Compare all 4- 5gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)9 points above · stronger on loss waterfall and exit price (6 against 2)65
- 6Jupiter JLP5 points above · stronger on fee versus pnl honesty (9 against 2)61
- 8dYdX MegaVault4 points below · weaker on verifiable loss of record (5 against 7)52
For your setup
Find out if Hyperliquid HLP fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Hyperliquid HLP lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best perp house vaultNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Hyperliquid HLP ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
327+7.176.08#2/9Loading evidence…
286+5.387.09#6/9Loading evidence…
242+1.545.09#7/9Loading evidence…
162+1.026.09#7/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Jupiter JLP, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 54–58 and stays #7
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Hyperliquid HLP’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Jupiter JLP+362#7 → #6
When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Jupiter JLP+463#7 → #6
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes Jupiter JLP+462#7 → #6
Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? 2 → 8 on its ladder · passes Jupiter JLP+662#7 → #6
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? 7 → 5 on its ladder · dYdX MegaVault passes it−252#7 → #8
When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? 6 → 3 on its ladder · dYdX MegaVault passes it−350#7 → #8
Smallest climb: “How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?” 7 → 10 passes Jupiter JLP, #6.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You can measure this vault better than most in the pool and the operator will still never tell you it can lose. The two worst fortnights in its life — -$4,662,818.58 in Nov 2025 and -$3,957,161.77 in the March 2025 JELLY week — are recoverable in one unauthenticated POST, and the APR its API serves is realised and PnL-inclusive (slightly negative in August 2026, 0.0404 on 2026-09-29), which is more honesty than most of this pool manages. But the page a depositor actually reads is 951 bytes long, uses the word 'loss' zero times and the word 'risk' zero times, and its single risk statement is a 4-day lock-up. Nothing sits beneath you: the docs say the liquidator vault 'is a component strategy of HLP' and that a backstop-liquidated trader's 'cross positions and cross margin are all transferred to the liquidator', so you inherit the blown-up position directly. The published automatic safeguard, ADL, fires only when an account 'becomes negative' — which for HLP means after your capital is gone — the contract spec prints 'Position limit | N/A', and the thing that actually saved this vault in March 2025 was a validator delisting vote on a page that never once says the word HLP.
Competitive position
Where Hyperliquid HLP leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#3 / 912.0 of 20 · best 14.0
Published criteria#7 / 911.3 of 30 · best 19.1
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Hyperliquid HLP leads
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?#2 / 9
Where it trails
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?#7 / 9
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?#7 / 9
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
dYdX MegaVault#8 of 9 · score 52 · 4.0 points behind
Hyperliquid HLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 5
dYdX MegaVault leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Hyperliquid HLP is ahead: published criteria (+3.9 display points).Scenario cost: dYdX MegaVault has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Jupiter JLP#6 of 9 · score 61 · 5.0 points ahead
Hyperliquid HLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 6
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?6 vs 3
Jupiter JLP leads on
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?6 vs 2
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?9 vs 2
Largest single reason Jupiter JLP is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: Jupiter JLP has no verified pricing for this scenario.
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC)#5 of 9 · score 65 · 9.0 points ahead
Hyperliquid HLP leads on
- How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?7 vs 6
gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) leads on
- When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?7 vs 6
- Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?6 vs 2
- Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?6 vs 2
Largest single reason gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) is ahead: published criteria (+9.9 display points).Scenario cost: gTrade gToken Vaults (gDAI / gUSDC) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 56 · gap 25.0Why GMX GM / GLV pools ranks above Hyperliquid HLP
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 25.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGMX GM / GLV poolsGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.014.0−5.2, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight11.319.1−20.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisGMX GM / GLV poolsPoints
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? · w3278−1.02, worse
When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? · w2869−2.69, worse
Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? · w2426−3.07, worse
Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? · w1629−3.58, worse
Net5681−25.0
Your scenario
Hyperliquid HLP is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 9 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
9 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free?strength 7 · weight 32Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear?strength 6 · weight 28Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take?strength 2 · weight 24Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me?strength 2 · weight 16Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Hyperliquid HLP 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by When one trader's win is bigger than the pool, who pulls the plug — a rule I can read, or a vote I'll never hear? · 28%
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by How much has this vault already lost when a trader won — and can I check that number myself, today, for free? · 32% (Hyperliquid HLP 7/10)Scored by Who eats the loss before I do — and if I try to leave first, how much do they take? · 24% (Hyperliquid HLP 2/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Oracle failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Is the number they advertise what I actually earned, or does it quietly leave out what the traders took from me? (16%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- From https://
hyperliquid .gitbook .io /hyperliquid-docs /hypercore /vaults /hypercore-vaults-legacy .md, fetched 2026-09-29: "Note that protocol vaults do not have any fees or profit share." HLP is a protocol vault, so it takes no management fee and no profit share. User vaults are different: "Vault owners receive 10% of the total profits." The keyless vaultDetails response for HLP (api.hyperliquid.xyz/info, same date) agrees, with leaderCommission 0.0. The product page https:// hyperliquid .gitbook .io /hyperliquid-docs /hypercore /vaults /protocol-vaults .md states the only exit condition: "The deposit lock-up period is 4 days."Hyperliquid HLP — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDHyperliquid HLP — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Hyperliquid L1 (HyperCore)
- Markets served
- europe, asia, latam, africa, mena, au, ca
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- What could be verified directly: nothing. This is a MARKET restriction, not the standard OFAC representation — but it could not be read character-exact, and a search snippet is not quoted as if it had been. https://
app .hyperliquid .xyz /terms returned HTTP 200 on 17 August 2026 at 1,426 bytes of React shell (title 'Hyperliquid', <div id="root">, no prose); the terms text is not in the served HTML and is not in the main bundle either — https:// app .hyperliquid .xyz /static /js /main .fb3f17b1 .js (5,012,760 bytes) was searched for 'Restricted Person', 'Restricted Territor' and 'Ontario' with zero hits, so the clause lives in a lazily loaded chunk that was not resolved. Separately, the ENTIRE documentation set is silent on geography: llms.txt enumerated 17 August 2026 lists no terms, eligibility or jurisdiction page, and protocol-vaults.md (951 bytes) contains no geographic language of any kind. What is reported for the Interface ToS — exclusion of persons resident/located/incorporated in the United States and in Ontario, Canada, in addition to sanctioned territories — is a genuine market carve-out and NOT merely the OFAC eligibility representation every crypto ToS carries, because Ontario and the US are named as jurisdictions rather than as sanctions targets. I have excluded 'us' and 'global' from supportedRegions on that basis and retained 'ca' because the carve-out is provincial, not national. Treat the exclusion as unverified-by-me; it is listed in `unresolved`. Note also that the restriction binds the INTERFACE, not the chain: HLP is a HyperCore vault reachable by signed transaction without the interface.
Legal entity on file: Hyperliquid, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Hyperliquid HLP: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
12 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 56, #7 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt perp_house_vaults:hyperliquid_hlp:2026.10.18:cb4c5a285099
Are you Hyperliquid HLP? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.