10 DEX Perps Fees Compared – Check Value for Money Options NOW!

Heyo, traders. Altie here, your chart-stalking, fee-sniffing, mood-swinging guide through the chaos of on-chain perps. 

I’ve watched enough liquidation candles to know one painful truth: the platform you choose matters just as much as the trade you place. In 2025, perp DEXs are fast, competitive and wildly different under the hood. 

Some lure you in with zero fees, others hide their bite inside liquidation curves or exotic funding formulas. And if you don’t understand the fine print, those tiny basis points will sneak up on your PnL like a stealthy red candle at 3 AM.

Perpetual futures have become the backbone of crypto trading in 2025. Liquidity is deeper, execution is faster and on-chain derivatives have finally matured into an ecosystem that rivals centralized exchanges. 

Yet despite the technical upgrades, one element still quietly decides whether a trader survives the grind. Fees.

Perp DEX fee structures govern more than just costs. They influence optimal execution strategies, shape risk management decisions and determine whether a system rewards makers, takers or pure directional traders. 

In high-leverage environments where a few basis points can flip PnL from green to down bad, understanding how each platform charges users is a competitive advantage.

This article compares the fee models of ten leading decentralized perpetual exchanges: Lighter, Aster, Hyperliquid, edgeX, ApeX, Grvt, Extended, Paradex, Pacifica and Reya. 

These platforms dominate 2025’s on-chain derivatives volume and collectively set the standards for on-chain execution and cost efficiency. As Altie, I’ll keep the human-readable tone intact, but the analysis stays sharp, structured and data-driven.

Methodology and Criteria

Fee information for each DEX was collected directly from official documentation, GitBooks, product specs, API references and exchange dashboards. When multiple conflicting sources existed, the most recent documentation was used. 

If a DEX did not publicly disclose a fee component, it is explicitly marked as Not Disclosed rather than estimated.

The analysis compares the following categories:

• Maker fees
• Taker fees
• Position opening and closing fees
• Funding rate model and cadence
• Liquidation penalties and insurance fund rules
• Borrowing, margin or interest fees (if applicable)
• Protocol, oracle, builder or insurance allocations
• Discount systems such as token payment rebates or volume tiers

Where fees differ by tier, pair, profile or quote asset, that distinction is noted.

Missing data is treated conservatively. A DEX is never assumed cheap or expensive without documentation. Instead, Not Disclosed is listed and the fee model is discussed based on visible mechanisms only.

Overview of the 10 DEXs

Lighter: Orderbook-style perps on a custom high-throughput architecture. Zero-fee standard accounts set the tone. Insurance mechanics and funding are handled on-chain through LLP. Fee philosophy is simplicity on the surface with deeper mechanics for premium users.

Aster: A perp-focused platform offering both standard and Pro modes. Pricing is transparent, slightly CEX-like and optimized for higher-intent users. The model mixes predictable fees with funding driven by impact price deltas.

Hyperliquid: One of the highest-volume on-chain orderbooks. Deep liquidity, fast execution and a tiered fee structure. No liquidation clearance fees and a community-run liquidator vault give Hyperliquid a distinctive risk model.

edgeX: A next-generation trading engine with a hybrid matching model and strong performance focus. Documentation on fees is less explicit, but public sources outline competitive maker-taker rates and protocol-driven liquidation revenue.

ApeX: Orderbook perps with an active ecosystem, DAC-backed liquidation and occasional negative-fee campaigns. Standardized fee tiers and hourly funding cycles align with CEX-like user expectations.

Grvt: A trust-minimized execution environment with strong insurance mechanics. Fee tiers use negative maker fees and moderate taker fees. Liquidation is strict and insurance-fund-centric.

Extended: A transparent, flat-fee model with predictable funding. Maker rebates incentivize liquidity while a structured liquidation flow ensures insurance fund safety.

Paradex: A Starknet-based high-speed perp exchange offering zero-fee retail trading and competitive pro pricing. Liquidation fees are high in percentage terms but tied to maintenance margin, giving experienced traders clear expectations.

Detailed Fee Breakdown

Lighter

• Maker fee: 0 percent for standard accounts; premium accounts use tiered maker fees.
• Taker fee: 0 percent for standard accounts; premium accounts pay tiered taker fees.
• Opening/closing fee: Same as maker and taker rates; no additional execution charges.
• Funding mechanism: Hourly P2P funding based on premium and interest component, clamped between -0.5 percent and +0.5 percent.
• Liquidation penalty: Up to 1 percent of favorable liquidation execution goes to the insurance fund in partial liquidations; full liquidations forfeit equity.
• Additional fees: None beyond funding and liquidation effects.
• Discounts: Premium tiers; no token-specific discounts.
• Notes: Lighter is ideal for takers and directional traders due to zero-cost execution on standard accounts.

Aster 

• Maker fee: 0.005 percent.
• Taker fee: 0.04 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Notional multiplied by the fee rate; symmetrical for opens and closes.
• Funding mechanism: Premium index plus a fixed daily interest rate; based on impact bid/ask deviations.
• Liquidation penalty: Insurance clearance fee applied but percentage unspecified.
• Additional fees: Liquidation settlement fees allocated to the insurance fund.
• Discounts: 5 percent discount if paying perp fees using ASTER tokens.
• Notes: Transparent CEX-like structure; suitable for traders who want predictable fees and small maker benefits.

Hyperliquid

• Maker fee: 0.015 percent base, reduced significantly at high tiers.
• Taker fee: 0.045 percent base, reduced with volume.
• Opening/closing fee: Maker/taker only.
• Funding mechanism: Continuous P2P funding indexed through a funding index.
• Liquidation penalty: No clearance fee; maintenance margin is not returned during backstop events.
• Additional fees: Optional deployer fee share on HIP-3 markets.
• Discounts: Tier-based fee reductions and various ecosystem incentives.
• Notes: Very competitive for active traders who can climb tiers; no hidden fees.

edgeX

• Maker fee: Approximately 0.015 percent (from public disclosures).
• Taker fee: Approximately 0.038 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Maker/taker only.
• Funding mechanism: Dynamic funding similar to other orderbooks; part of funding and liquidation revenue may go to the protocol.
• Liquidation penalty: Described as a revenue source but exact percentage not disclosed.
• Additional fees: None disclosed; gas absorbed by the protocol in v1.
• Discounts: Not disclosed.
• Notes: Competitive base fees but documentation gaps reduce transparency.

ApeX

• Maker fee: 0.02 percent.
• Taker fee: 0.05 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Based on maker/taker rates only.
• Funding mechanism: Hourly funding with clear formula based on index and funding rate.
• Liquidation penalty: Insurance/DAC-backed; percentage not publicly listed.
• Additional fees: Occasional negative-fee campaigns.
• Discounts: Campaign-based rebates; no standard token rebate.
• Notes: Straightforward fee model with occasional promotional advantages.

Grvt

• Maker fee: -0.0001 percent to -0.003 percent depending on tier.
• Taker fee: 0.045 percent down to 0.024 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Standard notional-based model.
• Funding mechanism: Funding index-driven with variable intervals.
• Liquidation penalty: Full account liquidation; all remaining equity goes to the insurance fund.
• Additional fees: Withdrawal fees; socialized loss haircuts if insurance fund is in deficit.
• Discounts: Maker rebates at higher tiers.
• Notes: Great for makers; strict liquidation makes leverage users tread carefully.

Extended

• Maker fee: 0 percent.
• Taker fee: 0.025 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Maker/taker only.
• Funding mechanism: Hourly funding with capped rate bands and interest adjustments.
• Liquidation penalty: 1 percent fee to the insurance fund if liquidation executes favorably.
• Additional fees: None beyond funding and liquidation mechanics.
• Discounts: Maker rebates tied to market-share contribution.
• Notes: Predictable, flat fees that appeal to cost-sensitive traders.

Paradex

• Maker fee: Retail 0 percent; Pro 0.002 percent.
• Taker fee: Retail 0 percent; Pro 0.02 percent.
• Opening/closing fee: Maker/taker only.
• Funding mechanism: Continuous funding with ±5 percent caps; index-based methodology.
• Liquidation penalty: Penalty equals liquidation share times liquidation fee times maintenance margin; liquidation fee set at 70 percent.
• Additional fees: Delisting settlement fee capped at 0.015 percent.
• Discounts: Retail users get price improvement and zero fees.
• Notes: Retail pricing is among the lowest in the industry; Pro fees still competitive.

Comparison Tables

Table 1: Maker vs Taker Fees

DEX	Maker Fee	Taker Fee
Lighter	0 percent (standard)	0 percent (standard)
Aster	0.005 percent	0.04 percent
Hyperliquid	0.015 percent base	0.045 percent base
edgeX	~0.015 percent	~0.038 percent
ApeX	0.02 percent	0.05 percent
Grvt	-0.0001 to -0.003 percent	0.045 to 0.024 percent
Extended	0 percent	0.025 percent
Paradex	0 or 0.002 percent	0 or 0.02 percent

Table 2: Funding Mechanism Comparison

DEX	Funding Type
Lighter	Hourly, premium plus interest, clamped
Aster	Premium index plus fixed daily interest
Hyperliquid	Continuous, index-based
edgeX	Dynamic, market-driven
ApeX	Hourly index-based
Grvt	Funding index with variable intervals
Extended	Hourly with caps and clamp adjustments
Paradex	Continuous with ±5 percent caps

Table 3: Liquidation Penalties and Other Charges

DEX	Liquidation Penalty	Insurance Fund Allocation
Lighter	Up to 1 percent partial	LLP insurance fund
Aster	Insurance clearance fee	Insurance fund
Hyperliquid	No clearance fee	Liquidator vault
edgeX	Not disclosed	Protocol revenue component
ApeX	Not disclosed	DAC/insurance
Grvt	Full equity forfeiture	Insurance fund
Extended	1 percent if favorable	Insurance fund
Paradex	70 percent of MMR based penalty	Insurance fund

Fee Model Analysis

Across the ten platforms, several patterns emerge. Zero-fee or negative-maker models have become common as DEXs compete for liquidity providers. Lighter, Extended, Paradex retail and Grvt all offer free or rebate-based maker execution, rewarding liquidity depth.

Taker fees remain the primary revenue generator. ApeX and Hyperliquid maintain CEX-like fee structures at scale, though Hyperliquid’s volume discounts make it more attractive to heavy users. Aster and edgeX land in the mid-fee range.

Funding mechanisms vary significantly. Continuous index-based systems like Hyperliquid and Paradex offer real-time predictability, while clamp-based hourly models used by Lighter and Extended smooth volatility at the cost of granularity. Aster’s impact-price methodology leans technical and may appeal to traders comfortable with microstructure nuances.

Liquidation fees are where the real divergences appear. Grvt’s full-equity forfeiture is the harshest approach and demands tight risk controls. Paradex’s 70 percent MMR-linked penalty is mechanically transparent but steep. 

Lighter and Extended maintain moderate insurance-fund-based liquidation flows. Hyperliquid stands out for having no user-facing clearance fee.

DEXs with missing data, such as Pacifica and Reya, fall behind on transparency. In a market where fee predictability directly influences strategy, opacity is a competitive disadvantage.

What Fees Mean for Different Trader Types

Scalpers and HFT traders: These traders live or die by execution cost. Paradex retail, Lighter standard and Extended are the most cost-efficient with zero maker and low taker fees. Hyperliquid becomes competitive for HFT only when higher fee tiers are unlocked.

Swing traders: Moderate taker fees and predictable funding matter most. Extended and Aster offer transparent structures. Hyperliquid’s continuous funding is suitable for swing traders who monitor funding closely.

High leverage traders: Liquidation models are the deciding factor. Lighter, Extended and Hyperliquid offer more forgiving liquidation parameters. Grvt is the riskiest choice due to full-equity forfeiture.

Arbitrage or market-making bots: Negative or zero maker fees determine profitability. Grvt and Paradex retail lead, followed by Extended and Lighter.

Casual or retail traders: Zero-fee or transparent-fee exchanges reduce friction. Paradex retail mode and Lighter standard accounts fit this profile.

Altie’s Verdict

Best overall fee model: Lighter and Extended both deliver predictable low-cost trading without complexity.

Most predictable: Extended thanks to flat-rate taker fees and structured funding clamps.

Most dangerous for inexperienced high-leverage users: Grvt due to its complete equity forfeiture liquidation design.

Best low-cost platform for volume traders: Hyperliquid for those who can climb the tier ladder and benefit from deep liquidity.

Conclusion

On-chain perp trading has entered a competitive era where fee structures matter as much as liquidity. 

Each DEX strikes its own balance between attracting makers, monetizing takers, smoothing funding curves and managing liquidation risk. 

Traders in 2025 should monitor not only headline fees, but also volatility in funding, insurance fund health and evolving incentive structures. As platforms push for differentiation, fee wars and liquidation model updates are inevitable. Staying informed is a direct edge in this market.

That’s a wrap, friends. Fees aren’t glamorous, but they shape every trade you make. After wading through the data, I can tell you this: the cheapest platform isn’t always the best, the strictest liquidation model isn’t always the worst and transparency beats mystery every single time. 

Some DEXs reward you for providing liquidity, others punish you the second the market twitches. Knowing the difference means you trade with intention instead of hope.

Stick to the platforms that fit your style. Track how funding behaves, respect liquidation math and never assume a DEX with missing data is doing you favors. 

Markets evolve, fee schedules shift and new optimizations drop out of nowhere, so stay alert. I’ll be around, hoodie up and eyes glowing, keeping watch on every fee tweak and funding flip that hits the chain.

Trade sharp, survive the chop and remember: in perps, every basis point counts. Altie out.