Hyperliquid vs Extended for perpetual futures

The short answer

Extended is one of the newer self-custodial perpetual venues, built on Starknet, with a zero maker fee, a low taker fee and an unusual list of real-world asset markets. Hyperliquid is the incumbent on-chain order book with the most markets and the deepest books in this category. On price Extended wins at the entry tier; on almost everything that fee tables cannot show, Hyperliquid does.

Fees

Extended charges 0% to makers and 0.025% to takers, and pays maker rebates to accounts with a meaningful share of maker volume. Hyperliquid’s tier 0 is 0.015% maker and 0.045% taker, or 0.0432% taker with a referral code.

So Extended is cheaper on both sides for a new account, and the referral code narrows the taker gap rather than closing it. That is the honest reading of the two schedules.

What the schedules do not show is depth. A lower fee on a thinner book can cost more per trade once slippage is counted, and on the major pairs Hyperliquid currently holds far more open interest. Check the book for your pair and your size on both before the basis points decide it. On anything held overnight, funding dominates both venues; the funding calculator prices a holding period.

Custody and what breaks

Both are self-custodial. Extended’s architecture documentation states that user funds are held in on-chain smart contracts with no custodial access by Extended; Hyperliquid’s balance sits in your own account on its chain. In both cases the risk is your own key management and the bridge you use, and our risk page applies to both.

The difference is record. Hyperliquid’s chain has run through more violent weeks with more open interest on it, and its liquidation vault is visible on-chain. Extended is newer and smaller. That is not a criticism, but a venue’s behaviour under stress is the thing no fee schedule can tell you, and the older venue has simply been tested more.

Access

Neither asks for documents. Extended’s restricted territories include the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Hong Kong, Russia and several others, and the site blocks access from them. Hyperliquid excludes residents of the United States and Ontario, Canada, plus sanctioned jurisdictions, under its Terms of Use. A reader in the UK, or in Canada outside Ontario, can use Hyperliquid and not Extended, which decides the question for them. Our country pages cover Hyperliquid’s side.

Where Extended is genuinely better

• Cheaper on both sides at the entry tier, with makers paying nothing.
• Maker rebates for accounts that provide a share of the venue’s liquidity.
• Real-world asset perpetuals, including pre-IPO markets, with a dedicated margin schedule.
• A points programme, if that is something you weigh.
• A Starknet-native account if your funds already live there.

Where Hyperliquid is genuinely better

• Far more markets and much deeper books on the majors.
• A longer record under load, with more open interest through more cycles.
• Available in the UK and in Canada outside Ontario, which Extended is not.
• Spot markets on the same account, plus an ecosystem on the same chain.
• Maker fees fall to zero at higher tiers and then pay a rebate.
• Equity, commodity and FX perpetuals through HIP-3, alongside Extended’s RWA list.

Who should pick which

Pick Extended if you rest orders and want to pay nothing for it, you trade in modest size where depth is not the constraint, or you want its particular real-world asset markets.

Pick Hyperliquid if you trade size on the majors, you want breadth of markets and a venue tested under stress, you are in the UK or Canada, or you want spot and perpetuals in one place.

Fee tables flatter the newer venue here, and it has earned that line. Depth and record are where the older one earns its keep, and for most readers those decide more than the basis points do.