Jupiter Perps Review
Itemized trading costs and a named audit record for the program
of 10
Jupiter Perps scores 5.8 among perpetual DEXs: its fees are itemized with formulas and three named audits cover its program, but the program is closed source and liquidation forfeits all remaining collateral on the main markets. Marks come from desk research of Jupiter's documentation and GitHub, checked November 1, 2026.
Overall score
5.8 = (8 + 7 + 1 + 7 + 6) / 5; ninth of nine, tied with Gains Network
JLP-market fees
0.06% open and close plus price impact; capped at 0.50% combined
Holding cost
Hourly borrow fee on full size from a utilization curve; no compounding
Liquidation
JLP markets: all remaining collateral taken; Beta: 0.75% to 1% fee
Code
Perpetuals program source not in the jup-ag GitHub organization
Audits
OtterSec 2023, Sec3 Jan 2024, Offside Labs Feb 2024; GUM not covered
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 7.0 + 1.0 + 7.0 + 6.0) ÷ 5 = 5.8.
Pros
- 0.06% base fee to open and close, with base plus price impact fees capped at 0.50% (fee mark 8)
- Price impact and borrow fee formulas published with the on-chain accounts that hold their parameters
- Liquidation-price formula published, with a warning that borrow fees move it over time (funding mark 7)
- Three named audits with linked reports: OtterSec, Sec3 and Offside Labs (audit mark 7)
Cons
- Perpetuals program source is not published by Jupiter (licence mark 1)
- On SOL, ETH and wBTC markets all remaining collateral is lost on liquidation
- No insurance fund or bad-debt rule described beyond the JLP pool
- Audits date from 2023 to February 2024; the program has been upgraded since
How Jupiter Perps scores in perpetual DEXs
This entry rates Jupiter Perps, the perpetual futures product on jup.ag, in our perpetual DEX ranking. Its main markets are SOL, ETH and wBTC, where traders take positions against the JLP liquidity pool at an oracle price. A smaller set of Beta markets runs on GUM, a separate order-book engine, and is covered where its terms differ. The basis is desk research of Jupiter's user and developer documentation and its GitHub organization, checked on November 1, 2026. No account was opened and no trade was placed. The category uses five equally weighted criteria, each marked 0 to 10, as set out in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | What the documentation shows | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Fee transparency | 0.06% base fee to open and close, a price impact fee with its formula and parameters, an hourly borrow fee and swap fees. Combined trading fees are capped at 0.50%. | 8 |
| Funding & liquidation clarity | No funding on JLP markets; a utilization-based borrow fee instead. All remaining collateral is lost on liquidation. Liquidation-price and borrow-fee formulas are published. Beta markets give margin tiers but no funding formula. | 7 |
| Licence & code openness | The perpetuals program's source is not in the jup-ag GitHub organization. Developers are pointed to a third-party repository to parse its interface. | 1 |
| Audit disclosure | Three named audits of the perpetuals program with linked reports, 2023 to February 2024. The program has been upgraded since, and GUM is not covered. | 7 |
| Risk documentation | Warnings on liquidation drift, oracle fallback rules, keeper dependence and JLP pool risks. No insurance fund or loss-sharing rule is described. | 6 |
The overall score is the plain average: (8 + 7 + 1 + 7 + 6) ÷ 5 = 29 ÷ 5 = 5.8. On current marks that puts Jupiter Perps ninth of nine in the category: Gains Network also scores 5.8 and is listed first under the alphabetical tie rule.
Two marks were raised on November 1, 2026. Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 7 because Jupiter's security page now names three audits of the perpetuals program and links each report. Funding and liquidation clarity rose from 6 to 7 because the docs now publish the liquidation-price formula and the borrow-fee curve. The previous overall was 4.6.
Strongest criterion: fee transparency (8)
The fee page lists every charge on the JLP markets and how each is computed. The base fee is 0.06% of size to open and again to close, so a $10,000 position pays $6 each way. Because trades fill at the oracle price rather than against a book, a price impact fee stands in for slippage. Its linear part charges 0.01% for every started $375,000 of a SOL trade (about $1.5 million on ETH and $2.4 million on wBTC, at October 2026 parameters). An additive part applies when a trade worsens the last minute's net long-short flow above a threshold. Base and price impact fees together are capped at 0.50%. The borrow fee is charged on the full position size at an hourly rate from a per-asset utilization curve, and the page publishes the curve's formula and the on-chain accounts that hold its parameters. The mark stops at 8 because the borrow rate and price impact parameters are live values a trader has to read from the app or the chain, not fixed published figures. Beta markets are simpler: 0.005% maker and 0.035% taker per order.
Middle criteria: audits, liquidation terms and risk
Audit disclosure (7)
Jupiter's security page lists three audits of the perpetuals program, each with a linked report: OtterSec (2023), Sec3 (January 17, 2024) and Offside Labs (February 2024). The page itself adds two limits. The program has been upgraded since those versions were reviewed, and the reports do not cover GUM, which runs the Beta markets. That puts the record between Hyperliquid's 6, for one firm reviewing only a bridge, and GMX's 9, for five named firms. A current audit of the deployed version would be needed for a higher mark.
Funding & liquidation clarity (7)
The JLP markets have no funding rate. The borrow fee replaces it and accrues without compounding. The defining term is the liquidation penalty: when a position hits its liquidation price, all remaining collateral is taken as the liquidation fee and nothing is returned. The liquidation page now publishes the formula for long and short positions, using a protocol maximum of 500x, so the implied minimum maintenance margin is 0.2% of size, separate from the 250x trading limit. It also warns that accrued borrow fees pull the liquidation price toward the market over time. Beta markets work differently. They pay hourly funding between longs and shorts and publish tiered maintenance margins from 1% to 10%, with a 0.75% or 1% liquidation fee and the rest returned. Their funding formula is not given; only the live one-hour rate is shown. With the formulas published, the JLP-market terms can be worked out from the docs, the standard Aevo's 8 and Gains Network's 7 reflect. The missing Beta funding formula holds the mark at 7.
Risk documentation (6)
The documentation names its dependencies plainly. JLP-market orders are executed by two keepers that Jupiter runs off-chain. Prices come from Edge by Chaos Labs, checked against Chainlink and Pyth, and the oracle page says no price update occurs if two or more oracles fail. What is missing is a backstop beyond the pool: no insurance fund, bad-debt rule or auto-deleveraging process is described for the JLP markets. For how leverage near the maximum leaves little room for error, see our guide to crypto risk management.
Weakest criterion: licence and code openness (1)
The jup-ag GitHub organization holds more than 200 repositories, including a GPL-3.0 command-line tool that can trade perps, but not the source of the perpetuals program. Jupiter's developer documentation points to a third-party repository for parsing the program's interface definition (IDL). A trader can read account layouts and fee parameters on-chain, but cannot read or reuse the code that applies them. That is a deficiency, not a gap in our check.
What the score does not cover
- Execution and liquidity. Oracle fills, keeper latency and pool depth were not measured.
- JLP as an investment. The pool's returns and risks for liquidity providers are outside this rating.
- GUM's engine. Beta markets run on GUM's own chain. Its security is not assessed here.
- Access. Jupiter's terms exclude wallets in the United States, Singapore and sanctioned regions, among others. Availability is not a criterion.
Jupiter Perps vs Aevo and Gains Network
Aevo, two places above at 6.0, ties Jupiter Perps on fees at 8 and edges it on funding and liquidation (8), licence (2) and risk documentation (7). Jupiter Perps leads on audits, 7 against Aevo's 5, which leaves it 0.2 points behind. Gains Network, level at 5.8, leads on fees (9) and licence (3), ties on funding and liquidation at 7, and trails on audits (5 against 7) and risk documentation (5 against 6).
Who this rating suits
The score describes a venue whose costs can be calculated from its own documentation but whose program code is closed and whose liquidation terms are harsh on the main markets. It is most useful to a trader who wants to price a short-term leveraged position on SOL, ETH or wBTC and accepts that a liquidation loses everything left in the position. It is less useful to anyone who needs to inspect the program's code. The score assesses documentation and is not a recommendation to trade with leverage.
How it compares
dYdX
Open AGPL core with fee and liquidation rules in numbers
Ostium
Audited, MIT-licensed contracts with no criterion below 8
GMX
Documented fees and funding, with a long named audit record
Orderly Network
Funding and margin rules in full, backed by 17 public audit reports
Paradex
Fee, funding and liquidation rules published as figures
Hyperliquid
Funding and liquidation terms documented to the exact formula
Aevo
Fees, funding and liquidation terms published as figures
Gains Network
Per-asset fees and liquidation thresholds published in full
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.Jupiter docs: Perps overview — checked
- 2.Jupiter docs: Perps fees — checked
- 3.Jupiter docs: Liquidation — checked
- 4.Jupiter docs: Beta markets — checked
- 5.Jupiter docs: Technical reference (oracles, keepers) — checked
- 6.Jupiter docs: JLP earn and risks — checked
- 7.Jupiter docs: Security audits — checked
- 8.Jupiter developer docs: Perpetuals — checked
- 9.Jupiter: Terms of Use — checked
- 10.GitHub: jup-ag organization repositories — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Jupiter Perps score 5.8?
It is the average of five equal marks: 8 for fee transparency, 7 for funding and liquidation clarity, 1 for licence and code openness, 7 for audit disclosure and 6 for risk documentation. They total 29, and 29 divided by 5 is 5.8.
What holds Jupiter Perps' score back?
Mainly code openness. The perpetuals program's source is not published, which scores 1. Risk documentation scores 6 because no insurance fund or bad-debt rule is described beyond the JLP pool.
Why did the score change from 4.6?
Two marks were raised on November 1, 2026: audit disclosure from 2 to 7, after the security page began listing three audits of the program with reports, and funding and liquidation clarity from 6 to 7, after the docs published the liquidation-price and borrow-fee formulas.
How does Jupiter Perps compare with Aevo and Gains Network?
Aevo scores 6.0 and Gains Network 5.8, the same as Jupiter Perps. Both trail Jupiter Perps on audit disclosure, where each scores 5 against 7, while both score higher on licence and code openness.
What was not measured in this rating?
Execution quality, keeper latency, pool depth, JLP returns and the security of GUM's engine. The rating is based on published documentation and code. No account was opened and no trades were placed.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.