Provider at a glance
- Category
- Perp DEXs
- Entity
- All 5 Jupiter products
- Official website
- jup.ag
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 60 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Jupiter Perps
Oracle-priced perpetuals on Solana
Perp DEXs
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 12 perp DEXs in the published ranking
60
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
- $7.20 your cost/yr
Is Jupiter Perps right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published criteria17.8/30 here; the category best is 26.6
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Global. Restricted: United States, Singapore.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best perpetual DEX shows where it lands for you.
What will Jupiter Perps cost you?
$7.20 your cost/yr
- How do you buy?
- Trading
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Trading fee
- 0.06%
$1.20 above the median of 8 priced perp DEXs.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Jupiter Perps?
- Evidence: unknown0 of 2 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Jupiter Perps
Compare all 4- 4Hyperliquid4 points above64$5.40
- 6GMXLevel on score60$7.20
- 7Lighter6 points below54$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Jupiter Perps fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Jupiter Perps 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 perpetual DEXNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Jupiter Perps ranks #5
2 published criteria · Σ weight 100
This category publishes 2 criteria — security & track record; decentralization & trust-minimization — but no per-criterion strength has been established for Jupiter Perps yet. Its position comes from the engine's five dimensions below, measured against the 12 ranked rows. Per-criterion receipts appear once the evidence read lands.
DimensionAgainst the poolValueBestRank
Availability / 20 · constant here14.014.0#1/12
Published criteria / 3017.826.6#5/12
Friction / 10 · constant here2.72.7#1/12
Trust record / 8 · constant here3.23.2#1/12
Measured data / 18 · constant here5.55.5#1/12
Margin−4behind Hyperliquid, #4
RobustnessNot scored on criteriaits position comes from the engine’s dimensions, not from criterion scores a re-read could move
Evidence0 of 2 scoredno receipt file for this category
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
It is within a tenth of the scale of the best in this ranking on no dimension that separates the products, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published criteria — 17.8/30 against a category best of 26.6/30
Record watch-outs
- Only a few markets (BTC / ETH / SOL) — narrow range by design
- Collateral is contract-custodied and the program is admin-controlled: an untimelocked 4-of-7 multisig can change custody permissions (including withdrawals) and oracles — a higher trust assumption than self-custodial venues
Competitive position
Where Jupiter Perps 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#1 / 1214.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 1217.8 of 30 · best 26.6
Friction#1 / 122.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 123.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 125.5 of 18 · constant here
Where Jupiter Perps leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
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.
GMX#6 of 12 · score 60 · same score
Jupiter Perps leads onNo scored criterion
GMX leads onNo scored criterion
Scenario cost: GMX is the same.
Hyperliquid#4 of 12 · score 64 · 4.0 points ahead
Jupiter Perps leads onNo scored criterion
Hyperliquid leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Hyperliquid is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Hyperliquid is −$1.80 against Jupiter Perps.
Lighter#7 of 12 · score 54 · 6.0 points behind
Jupiter Perps leads onNo scored criterion
Lighter leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Jupiter Perps is ahead: published criteria (+5.7 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Lighter's figure is the fee alone, plus slippage.
Against the leader
83 vs 60 · gap 23.0Why Gains Network (gTrade) ranks above Jupiter Perps
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 23.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGains Network (gTrade)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.826.6−22.9, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here5.55.5same
Net6083−23.0
Your scenario
What Jupiter Perps costs on your scenario
Trading fee on what you buy: on one purchase, or for a year of purchases or of trading. Fixed purchase fees and deposit fees are not published as fields yet, so they are excluded, as are network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
How do you buy?
$1k a month × 12 months × 0.06% trading fee = $7.20 / year
How do you buy? · your inputTrading
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Trading fee · published rate0.06%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 3 November 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$7.20
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$6.008 of 12 rows priced · Jupiter Perps +$1.20 vs median
Cheapest priced$4.20 · Gains Network (gTrade)Jupiter Perps costs +$3.00 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Gains Network (gTrade)
2 of 12 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
2 of 12 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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.
0 of 2 cells scored
Score evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsReading…category publishes no receipt file
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.RobustnessNot scored on criteriano re-run describes this row
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.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
12 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Security & track recordstrength — · weight 60Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Decentralization & trust-minimizationstrength — · weight 40Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Security & track record · 60%
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Decentralization & trust-minimization · 40%
Not assessed by this ranking: Oracle failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Model: oracle-priced vs JLP pool (Solana). Since late 2023. Contract-custodied, admin-controlled (untimelocked 4-of-7 multisig can change custody permissions/oracles; upgrades via 4-of-8 multisig with 24h timelock). Audited (Offside Labs, OtterSec, Sec3). SOL/ETH/wBTC on the JLP pool plus six Beta markets on GUM (USDC collateral). Up to 250x. Fees (Jupiter Perps docs "Fees", read 3 November 2026): "Base fee | Open and close | 0.06% of trade size", plus price impact and hourly borrow fees. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama, dated), not scored.Jupiter Perps — official page at docs.jup.ag ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Prices published in
- USDJupiter Perps — official page at docs.jup.ag ↗ · 3 November 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Solana
- Markets served
- europe, global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- United States, Singapore
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Jupiter Terms of Use for the jup.ag interface (no revision date shown, read 3 November 2026, https://
developers .jup .ag /docs /legal /terms-of-use): "Jupiter does not interact with digital wallets located in, established in, or a resident of the United States, the Republic of China, Singapore, Myanmar (Burma), Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Cuba, Crimea and Sevastopol, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe". "The Republic of China" is not mapped to a country here because the name is ambiguous.
Legal entity on file: Jupiter, placed in 5 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Jupiter Perps: 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.
11 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 60, #5 of 12. 0 of 2 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
2026.10.6A 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.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt perp_dex:jupiter-perps:2026.10.18:1a6225a6fa2e
Are you Jupiter Perps? 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.