GMX and Jupiter Perps tie on score at 60; the published tie-break orders them. GMX ranks #6 and Jupiter Perps #5 of 12 published perp DEXs. The ledger below shows where each side is ahead — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
GMX60
vs
Jupiter Perps60
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #5 of 12
GMX and Jupiter Perps tie on score at 60; the published tie-break orders them.
GMX #6 of 1260
Jupiter Perps #5 of 1260
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termGMX leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; Jupiter Perps on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermGMXJupiter PerpsWeightPoints
No published term separates the two — every criterion cell and every score dimension is equal.
Net of the terms0.0
Reproduced gap0.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
This ranking scores its published criteria from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion, so they count here as one term and no single criterion is credited.
A row-above bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
GMXScore 60Oracle-priced pools on Arbitrum & Avalanche — contract-custodied, exploited in 2025Strength: Oracle-priced pool model with an extensively audited v2Watch-out: A July-2025 re-entrancy exploit drained ~$42M from the v1 GLP pool (mostly recovered + reimbursed; v2 unaffected) — weigh its security recordJupiter PerpsScore 60Solana's oracle-priced perps against the JLP pool — audited, admin-controlledStrength: Solana-native, oracle-priced perpsWatch-out: Only a few markets (BTC / ETH / SOL) — narrow range by design
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactGMXJupiter Perps
Trading feeSnapshotModel: oracle-priced GM pools (v2; v1 GLP wound down), keeper-executed. Since 2021. Arbitrum/Avalanche/MegaETH (gmx.io also names Solana). Contract-custodied (GMX bank/vault contracts). Extensively audited (v2); July-2025 ~$42M v1 GLP re-entrancy exploit (mostly recovered, v2 unaffected). Up to 100x. Fees (GMX docs "Fees", read 3 November 2026): "The position fee is 0.04% or 0.06% of the position size.", 0.06% when a trade increases the long/short open-interest imbalance and 0.04% when it reduces it. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama, dated), not scored.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.
Security postureSnapshotExtensively audited; admin-controlled contracts; an exploit that lost user or LP funds (2025, rated severe).Audited; admin-controlled contracts.
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
GMX
60#6 of 12
Pick it when
GMX leads Jupiter Perps on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Oracle-priced pool model with an extensively audited v2
Tradeoff
A July-2025 re-entrancy exploit drained ~$42M from the v1 GLP pool (mostly recovered + reimbursed; v2 unaffected) — weigh its security record
Jupiter Perps
60#5 of 12
Pick it when
Jupiter Perps leads GMX on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Solana-native, oracle-priced perps
Tradeoff
Only a few markets (BTC / ETH / SOL) — narrow range by design
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
GMX
GMX leads Jupiter Perps on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
GMXScore 60Oracle-priced pools on Arbitrum & Avalanche — contract-custodied, exploited in 2025Strength: Oracle-priced pool model with an extensively audited v2Watch-out: A July-2025 re-entrancy exploit drained ~$42M from the v1 GLP pool (mostly recovered + reimbursed; v2 unaffected) — weigh its security record
Jupiter Perps
Jupiter Perps leads GMX on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Jupiter PerpsScore 60Solana's oracle-priced perps against the JLP pool — audited, admin-controlledStrength: Solana-native, oracle-priced perpsWatch-out: Only a few markets (BTC / ETH / SOL) — narrow range by design
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 860 of 4 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Security
weight 14.4 of 86Not scored
GMXNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Jupiter PerpsNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Decentralization
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
GMXNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Jupiter PerpsNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
GMX14/20Jupiter Perps14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
GMX17.8/30Jupiter Perps17.8/30
Tie
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
GMX2.7/10Jupiter Perps2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
GMX3.2/8Jupiter Perps3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
GMX5.5/18Jupiter Perps5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Same published score — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
GMX leads Jupiter Perps on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Jupiter Perps leads GMX on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
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.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
GMX and Jupiter Perps tie on score at 60; the published tie-break orders them. Published scores, out of 100: GMX 60 (rank 6 of 12 perp dexs), Jupiter Perps 60 (rank 5 of 12).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
