Hyperliquid Review
Hourly funding and liquidations documented in full
of 10
Hyperliquid publishes entry-tier fees of 0.015% maker and 0.045% taker, an hourly funding formula with its exact parameters, and states there is no clearance fee on liquidations — with a maintenance margin band of 1.25% to 16.7% by leverage. Its core matching engine is not open source.
No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.
Maker/taker
0.015% / 0.045% at base tier
Funding
Hourly; interest rate 0.01% per 8h, premium clamped, capped 4%/hr
Liquidation fee
None
Maintenance margin
1.25% (40x) to 16.7% (3x)
Core licence
Not open source; SDKs MIT, node Apache-2.0
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (9.0 + 10.0 + 3.0 + 6.0 + 8.0) ÷ 5 = 7.2.
Pros
- Entry-tier fees published: 0.015% maker, 0.045% taker
- Funding paid hourly with the full formula and its clamps published
- No clearance fee on liquidations, stated plainly
- Maintenance margin band published: 1.25% at 40x down to 16.7% at 3x
Cons
- The core matching engine is not open-sourced; only SDKs are MIT and the node is Apache-2.0
- The contracts repository carries no licence
- Only Zellic is named, for the bridge contract rather than the exchange core
The mechanics are fully documented
Hyperliquid publishes its funding formula outright — a premium index plus a clamped interest-rate term, sampled every five seconds, charged hourly and capped at 4% per hour — and states that, unlike centralised venues, there is no clearance fee on liquidations. The maintenance margin runs from 1.25% on 40x assets to 16.7% on 3x assets. A trader can work out the cost of a position and the point of liquidation from the documentation alone, which is what this criterion rewards.
The core is closed
What is open are the Python and Rust SDKs, under MIT, and the node software under Apache-2.0. The matching engine itself — the part that actually executes trades — is not published, and the contracts repository has no licence file. For a venue whose order book is its product, that is a real limit on how much can be verified, and the licence score reflects the core rather than the tooling.
How it compares
Drift
Apache-2.0 core; live docs now serve a fork
Jupiter Perps
Fees documented, core program closed
Gains Network
Granular fee schedule, core licence unconfirmed
Paradex
Low maker fee published, wider docs unreachable
Aevo
Fees and liquidation tiers published, code unverified
Orderly Network
Apache-2.0 core with three named auditors
Ostium
MIT-licensed with six named audit reports
GMX
Imbalance-based fees, five named auditors
dYdX
AGPL-licensed core with a published liquidation cap
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Hyperliquid — fees — checked
- 2.Hyperliquid — funding — checked
- 3.Hyperliquid — liquidations — checked
- 4.Hyperliquid — audits — checked
Frequently asked questions
What are Hyperliquid's trading fees?
0.015% maker and 0.045% taker at the base tier, per the official fee documentation.
Does Hyperliquid charge a liquidation fee?
No. The documentation states there is no clearance fee on liquidations, unlike centralised exchanges.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.