Hyperliquid vs Paradex Hyperliquid leads by 15 points.
Hyperliquid scores 15 points above Paradex on the published criteria (19.2 vs 13.4 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Hyperliquid ranks #4 and Paradex #8 of 12 published perp DEXs. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Hyperliquid64
vs
PAParadex49
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #8 of 12
Hyperliquid scores 15 points above Paradex on the published criteria (19.2 vs 13.4 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion.
Hyperliquid #4 of 1264
PAParadex #8 of 1249
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termHyperliquid leads on 0 of 2 published criteria; Paradex on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermHyperliquidParadexWeightPoints
Published criteriaScore dimension19.213.430+15.1for Hyperliquid
Net of the terms+15.1
Reproduced gap+15.1
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6449+15.0
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.
HyperliquidScore 64The onchain orderbook leader — its own L1, self-custodial, fully onchainStrength: Fully onchain orderbook — verifiable, self-custodialWatch-out: Younger, with no public audit of the core engine (its audits page lists only Zellic audits of the legacy bridge, which holds under 10% of the USDC supply on HyperCore) and a concentrated validator set: Hyper Foundation validators held 48.0% of active stake in September 2026ParadexScore 49Starknet appchain perps — offchain order matching, bridged custodyStrength: Starknet-based appchain with settlement proven onchainWatch-out: A January-2026 chain rollback reversed an incident — an operational intervention and a centralisation/liveness signal to weigh
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactHyperliquidParadex
Trading feeSnapshotModel: onchain central-limit orderbook (own L1). Since 2023. Self-custodial, fully onchain. Limited audit coverage (Zellic audited the legacy bridge; no public core-engine audit listed); March-2025 JELLY was a governance intervention. Up to 40x (BTC). Fees (Hyperliquid docs "Fees", read 3 November 2026): perps base rate, tier 0, taker "0.045%" and maker "0.015%", lower with 14-day volume. Live TVL shown for context (DefiLlama, dated), not scored.Model: offchain orderbook on a Starknet-based appchain (centralized sequencer matching, settlement proven onchain). Since 2024. Bridged custody; admin-controlled (the operator can block L1 deposits and limit L1 and L2 withdrawals). Audited (Cairo Security Clan, May 2025). Jan-2026 chain rollback (operational, not a fund-draining exploit). Up to 50x. Fees (Paradex docs "Trading Fees", read 3 November 2026): "Retail Takers and Makers have 0% fees on all products: Perps, Spot and Options"; API (Pro) traders pay the published Pro schedule. Live TVL shown for context, not scored.
Younger, with no public audit of the core engine (its audits page lists only Zellic audits of the legacy bridge, which holds under 10% of the USDC supply on HyperCore) and a concentrated validator set: Hyper Foundation validators held 48.0% of active stake in September 2026
PA
Paradex
49#8 of 12
Pick it when
Paradex leads Hyperliquid 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
Starknet-based appchain with settlement proven onchain
Tradeoff
A January-2026 chain rollback reversed an incident — an operational intervention and a centralisation/liveness signal to weigh
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
HyperliquidLeads
Hyperliquid leads Paradex on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
HyperliquidScore 64The onchain orderbook leader — its own L1, self-custodial, fully onchainStrength: Fully onchain orderbook — verifiable, self-custodialWatch-out: Younger, with no public audit of the core engine (its audits page lists only Zellic audits of the legacy bridge, which holds under 10% of the USDC supply on HyperCore) and a concentrated validator set: Hyper Foundation validators held 48.0% of active stake in September 2026
PAParadex
Paradex leads Hyperliquid on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
ParadexScore 49Starknet appchain perps — offchain order matching, bridged custodyStrength: Starknet-based appchain with settlement proven onchainWatch-out: A January-2026 chain rollback reversed an incident — an operational intervention and a centralisation/liveness signal to weigh
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
HyperliquidNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
ParadexNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
Decentralization
weight 9.6 of 86Not scored
HyperliquidNot scored
No evidence cell for this criterion, so no strength is drawn.
ParadexNot 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
Hyperliquid14/20Paradex14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hyperliquid19.2/30Paradex13.4/30
Hyperliquid leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hyperliquid2.7/10Paradex2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Hyperliquid3.2/8Paradex3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Hyperliquid5.5/18Paradex5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Hyperliquid unless the term Paradex leads on is the one you are buying.
Paradex leads Hyperliquid 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
Hyperliquid scores 15 points above Paradex on the published criteria (19.2 vs 13.4 points), which this ranking scores from the record as a whole, not criterion by criterion. Published scores, out of 100: Hyperliquid 64 (rank 4 of 12 perp dexs), Paradex 49 (rank 8 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
