At a glance
GMX ↗ and Aevo ↗ compete in the decentralized derivatives space, but they serve different niches. GMX, launched in 2021, operates as a multi-asset perpetuals exchange with a shared liquidity pool model across Arbitrum, Avalanche, and Solana. It holds $0.17B in TVL. Aevo, launched in 2023, is a newer entrant running on a custom OP Stack rollup. It combines options and perpetuals trading with a distinctive pre-launch token market. Aevo’s TVL stands at $0.01B. The choice hinges on whether you prioritize deep liquidity and chain diversity or a dedicated platform for options and pre-launch speculation.
Key differences
- Total Value Locked: GMX holds $0.17B in TVL, roughly ten times Aevo’s $0.01B. This liquidity depth impacts slippage and capacity for large positions.
- Chains: GMX is deployed on Arbitrum, Avalanche, and Solana, offering access to multiple Layer 1 and Layer 2 ecosystems. Aevo operates exclusively on its own Aevo L2 (OP Stack rollup), concentrating liquidity but limiting cross-chain flexibility.
- Product scope: GMX focuses on perpetual swaps via a shared liquidity pool (GLP/GM). The v2 upgrade introduced isolated GM markets with custom risk parameters. Aevo provides a hybrid orderbook for perpetuals and a full options chain, plus pre-launch markets that let users trade future token prices—a feature absent from GMX.
- Audits: GMX has been audited by ABDK, Quantstamp, and Guardian Audits. Aevo’s audits come from OpenZeppelin and Spearbit. Aevo has no recorded security incidents; GMX’s V1 GLP contracts were exploited for ~$42M via a reentrancy bug on Arbitrum in July 2025 (GMX V2 was unaffected).
- Age and governance: GMX has been live since 2021, giving it a longer track record through various market cycles. Aevo launched in 2023 and is governed by the Aevo DAO, while GMX operates under GMX DAO.
Security and track record
GMX’s three audits—covering its core contracts, GLP pool, and v2 GM markets—provide a broad security baseline. In July 2025, however, GMX’s V1 GLP contracts were exploited for ~$42M via a reentrancy bug on Arbitrum; GMX V2 was unaffected and most of the stolen funds were later returned by the attacker under a whitehat arrangement. Aevo’s two audits from top-tier firms (OpenZeppelin and Spearbit) focus on its orderbook and options engine; it remains incident-free. GMX’s multi-year operating history across multiple chains has processed billions in cumulative volume, but the V1 exploit shows even long-lived code carries risk. Aevo’s shorter history and single-chain deployment mean less empirical stress testing, though its audit record is solid.
Fees and costs
Fee specifics vary by product and market conditions on both platforms. GMX charges a position fee (borrowing cost) and a trading fee that depends on pool utilization; revenue flows to GLP/GM liquidity providers. Aevo uses a maker-taker model on its orderbook, with rates set by the protocol. Neither set of fees is fixed, and users should check current figures on the respective platform’s documentation or fee page. In our dataset, precise fee numbers are not disclosed; consult official sources for the latest.
Which should you choose
Pick GMX if you:
- Need deep liquidity ($0.17B TVL) for large-size perps trades.
- Prefer accessing multiple chains (Arbitrum, Avalanche, Solana) from a single interface.
- Value a longer, multi-chain track record across several market cycles.
Pick Aevo if you:
- Trade options alongside perpetuals, or want exposure to pre-launch token markets.
- Are comfortable using a dedicated L2 rollup and don’t need cross-chain flexibility.
- Prefer an orderbook-based trading experience over a liquidity pool model.
Verdict
GMX’s higher TVL, multi-chain availability, and longer operational history make it the stronger all-round perpetuals DEX for most traders. Aevo wins if your strategy includes options or pre-launch markets. The decision is context-dependent: choose GMX for deep, reliable perps liquidity; pick Aevo for its unique derivatives breadth.