Hyperliquid vs Uniswap

Hyperliquid3.4/5

VS

Uniswap4.1/5

Feature	HyperliquidVisit	UniswapVisit
Ratings
Our score	3.4/5	4.1/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Liquidity & pricing	4.5	4.5
Fees	3.0	3.5
Security	3.0	4.0
Ease of use	4.0	4.0
Chain coverage	2.5	4.5
Specs
KYC required	Not disclosed	No
Type	Order book, Perpetuals	AMM
Chains	Hyperliquid, Arbitrum	Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Chain, Other
Limit orders	Yes	Yes
Cross-chain swaps	Not disclosed	Yes
Audited	Yes	Yes
Open source	Not disclosed	Yes
Governance token	HYPE	UNI
Perpetual futures	Yes	No
Max leverage (x)	40	Not disclosed
Routes across other DEXs	No	Yes
MEV protection	Not disclosed	Yes
Mobile app	Not disclosed	Yes
Company
Founded	—	2018
Headquarters	—	United States
Investors	Not disclosed	Polychain Capital, BlackRock, Andreessen Horowitz, Paradigm +8
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Fully onchain order book with transparent liquidations Reported $7.2B in 24-hour volume Perpetual leverage reaches 40x for BTC's first margin tier Non-custodial trading model	Non-custodial wallet trading across 16+ EVM mainnets V3 offers four published pool fee tiers V4 supports programmable hooks and concentrated liquidity UniswapX can shift gas payment to fillers
Cons	JELLY settlement at $0.0095 raised validator-centralization concerns HLP lost about $4M in a March 2025 ETH liquidation Bridge audit excluded the front end and off-chain components	Pool fees vary by market and network gas is separate Thin pools can produce high slippage and poor execution Liquidity providers face out-of-range and impermanent-loss risk V4 hooks and fillers add external smart-contract dependencies
Best for	Onchain perpetual traders, Order-book spot traders, Builders using HyperCore liquidity	On-chain token traders, Concentrated liquidity providers, Developers building EVM swaps

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.

More comparisons