Hyperliquid vs Paradex

Two appchain-based perpetual DEXs with very different backing and fee models. Architecture, cost, token timing and what each is optimised for.

TL;DR

Both run on a chain of their own rather than a general-purpose network — Hyperliquid on a custom L1, Paradex on a Starknet appchain. Hyperliquid is self-funded with a user-weighted token; Paradex is backed by Paradigm and has run an aggressive zero-fee model. The choice mostly comes down to which infrastructure and which fee assumptions you want to depend on.

Hyperliquid

Chain
Hyperliquid L1
Model
Fully on-chain central limit order book
Token
HYPE

Paradex

Chain
Paradex (Starknet appchain)
Model
Order book on a dedicated appchain
Token
DIME

Two routes to an appchain

Hyperliquid built its own L1 outright. Paradex built a Starknet appchain, inheriting Starknet’s proving stack and tooling while keeping a dedicated execution environment for the exchange.

Both solve the same problem — a general-purpose chain cannot host a competitive order book — and neither approach is obviously better. Paradex leans on an existing proof system; Hyperliquid controls the full stack and carries full responsibility for it.

Fees and what they signal

Paradex has run a zero maker and taker fee model, which is about as aggressive as pricing gets in this category and has clearly contributed to its volume.

The same caveat applies as with any zero-fee venue: the model is funded by investment and token incentives during a growth phase, and fee schedules are the easiest thing to change once that phase ends. It is a reason to trade there now, not a permanent property of the venue.

Backing and token timing

Paradex is backed by Paradigm, one of the larger venture firms in crypto, and launched its DIME token in March 2026 — considerably later than most of its peers, after building volume first.

Hyperliquid took the opposite path: no outside capital, and a token distributed to users in late 2024. Whether an investor-backed venue with a late token or a self-funded one with an early user distribution suits you better depends on how much weight you put on supply overhang versus institutional backing.

Who each one suits

Hyperliquid
Traders prioritising depth and a venue with no investor unlock schedule, willing to depend on a bespoke L1.
Paradex
Cost-sensitive traders who want an appchain built on an established proving stack and are comfortable with a recently launched token.

Frequently Asked Questions

1.What is a Starknet appchain?

A dedicated chain using Starknet’s proving technology, running only this application. It gets throughput and fee control without sharing a general-purpose network, while reusing Starknet’s infrastructure rather than building a proof system from scratch.

2.Does zero fees mean zero cost?

No. Even with no explicit fee you pay the spread and any slippage, and funding still applies to open positions. Zero fees removes one cost, not all of them.

3.Which is larger?

That varies by metric and by month. Compare current volume and open interest on the dashboard rather than relying on a fixed claim.

See the current numbers

This page covers what does not change. For live volume, open interest and fees:

Other comparisons

Hyperliquid vs dYdXLighter vs Paradex