Skip to main content
DeFi Millionaire book on Amazon (opens in a new tab)

DN Decision Briefs / Evidence comparison

GMX vs MUX vs SynFutures

The final three-way refresh sharpens product-scope and cost differences without producing a winner. GMX adds more explicit pool-impact/funding/borrowing controls, MUX now quantifies native V3 fees and borrowing, and SynFutures' current 2026 stack is broader than the historical V3 snapshot.

Reviewed 2026-10-24Version 1.1.0No live execution tests

What Matters

Compare like with like. Keep the gaps visible.

3 pinned documentation briefs compared by decision condition. Not a live execution test, security audit, exhaustive product inventory or individual eligibility assessment.

GMX is scoped to V2 on Arbitrum. MUX separates aggregation from native V3 markets; SynFutures coverage concerns its perpetual engine. These are different product scopes, not three interchangeable or necessarily independent liquidity venues. No common deployment or current route inventory is asserted.

DN Evidence Block

The conditions side by side.

Documentation comparison. No independent execution measurements. Source versions: GMX 1.1.0, MUX 1.1.0, SynFutures 1.1.0.
Decision factorGMXMUXSynFutures
Product and execution route

Trace related claims

GMX V2 remains a direct-market model with pool-specific execution and collateral. This review stays Arbitrum-focused even though current GMX materials reference other deployments and source-chain funding routes.

GMX trading overview

MUX remains a suite: aggregator routes may combine underlying venues, while native V3 uses its own elemental-pool model.

MUX perpetual aggregator

Current SynFutures materials describe a broader 2026 stack with newer mainnet/API surfaces and deployments including Base, Blast and Monad; the perpetual engine remains distinct from tokenized/RWA products.

SynFutures product introduction
Collateral and market selection

Trace related claims

Collateral choices depend on the market and pool. The order guide gives BTC or USDC as choices for a BTC-USDC market. Non-stable collateral adds price exposure.

GMX positions and order types

The V3 guide describes pools with different collateral, markets and directional exposure. Positions can route to multiple elemental pools.

MUX V3 trading protocol

The tutorial distinguishes stablecoin and coin-margin markets, then illustrates a USDC deposit.

SynFutures written tutorial
Trading and holding costs

Trace related claims

Position fees remain only one component; current docs also emphasize pool-specific price impact, funding, borrowing, swaps and execution/network costs.

GMX fees

Native V3 currently documents 0.06% open/close position fees, hourly borrowing based on an 8% base annualized rate that can rise toward roughly 40–50%, and a 0.06% liquidation fee; third-party routes inherit underlying venue economics.

MUX fee structure

The April 2024 V3 fee-tier announcement remains historical and should not be treated as a current 2026 fee schedule without newer official confirmation.

SynFutures April 2024 fee-tier announcement (historical)
Order and routing conditions

Trace related claims

Oracle-side triggers, acceptable-price constraints and pool price-impact limits can prevent or alter execution during fast moves.

GMX positions and order types

Aggregator routing and leverage boosting add route selection plus boost-specific charges; route estimates remain provider-side optimization rather than measured execution quality.

MUX perpetual aggregator

Trade previews still expose margin, price impact, estimated value and fees; current API availability adds a submission route but not proof of better fills.

SynFutures written tutorial
Managing exposure before exit

Trace related claims

Stop-loss attempts before liquidation remain conditional and are not guaranteed; pool and market constraints can also affect risk capacity.

GMX liquidations and ADL

Native V3 supports cross/isolated modes, while aggregator routes may inherit different underlying venue settings.

MUX V3 trading protocolMUX perpetual aggregator

Liquidity removal can still convert into a trading position that must then be closed separately; removal is not automatically a cash exit.

SynFutures written tutorial
What remains unmeasured

Trace related claims

This pinned snapshot provides no independent measurements of execution, withdrawal reliability or individual eligibility.

No contemporaneous multi-venue execution benchmark, withdrawal test or stop-loss reliability test was conducted for this brief.

MUX perpetual aggregator

This pinned snapshot provides no independent measurements of execution, withdrawal reliability or individual eligibility.

Product and execution route: the implication

These are different execution architectures. Interface count does not equal independent liquidity, and current product/version must be identified before comparing mechanics.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedWhere does the trade execute?

    The overview lists direct markets on Arbitrum, Avalanche and MegaETH. GMX Account access from supported source chains settles on Arbitrum.

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedDoes the same product rule cover every asset on the site?

    Current SynFutures materials describe a broader 2026 platform stack than the earlier V3-only framing, with a newer mainnet architecture, API access and separate product surfaces. Perpetual trading remains distinct from tokenized/RWA offerings.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0

Collateral and market selection: the implication

Confirm the exact market, collateral token and execution chain. A deposit option or tutorial example is not a universal margin list.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedDo all V3 pools accept the same assets?

    Native V3 remains pool-specific: elemental pools can use different collateral, market and directional-exposure configurations, and positions can span multiple elemental pools.

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedCan one deposit example establish all supported collateral?

    The reviewed tutorial still distinguishes stablecoin- and coin-margined markets, but current deployment references now span networks including Base, Blast and Monad. A single USDC example remains insufficient as a universal collateral/network list.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0

Trading and holding costs: the implication

Do not compare a GMX position-fee component, MUX native V3 schedule and a historical SynFutures rebate notice as equivalent current all-in costs.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedWhat does the headline position fee leave out?

    Current GMX V2 fees remain market- and balance-dependent. Position fees are still separate from price impact, swaps, funding, borrowing and execution/network costs; current docs also describe continuous or event-driven funding/borrowing accrual and pool-specific price-impact caps.

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedDoes the native fee schedule apply to every route?

    Third-party aggregator routes still inherit underlying-protocol economics. Current MUX V3 docs separately describe a 0.06% position fee on opening and closing, hourly borrowing based on an 8% base annualized rate that can rise with utilisation toward roughly 40–50%, plus a 0.06% liquidation fee.

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Historical provider statementIs a fee discount necessarily credited at execution?

    The April 2024 V3 fee-tier announcement remains historical evidence. Current 2026 product changes mean those discount/rebate terms should not be treated as current without a newer official fee source.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0

Order and routing conditions: the implication

Preview, route optimization and oracle-trigger logic are not execution receipts. A matched live benchmark is still required.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedDoes a chart touching the trigger guarantee an exit?

    Order triggering still uses direction-dependent oracle bid/ask bounds rather than chart midpoint. Current documentation also describes market-specific acceptable-price and price-impact constraints that can cancel or limit execution during fast moves.

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedWhat belongs in the order-cost check?

    The trade preview still exposes margin required, price impact, estimated trade value and fee before confirmation; current API availability adds another route for submission but does not by itself establish better fills.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0

Managing exposure before exit: the implication

Exit mechanics differ materially. Closing a position, removing liquidity and withdrawing funds remain separate steps.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedCan a stop-loss guarantee protection from liquidation?

    The liquidation path remains conditional and stop-loss execution is not guaranteed before liquidation. Current docs also distinguish margin deposits/top-ups from order execution and note that pool/market conditions can affect available risk capacity.

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

  • Provider-reportedDoes removing liquidity finish the exit?

    The tutorial describes removal as conversion into a trading position, followed by a separate close. It distinguishes removal price from liquidation price.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0

What remains unmeasured: the implication

No matched live trades, stop-loss observations or withdrawal tests support a performance or safety winner.

Trace related claims

These dated claims provide context for this row. Each may cover only part of the comparison. Open a claim to inspect its evidence trail or save it in your browser.

GMX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

No individual claim is mapped for this part of the comparison. This does not establish that the condition is safe, available or unchanged.

Read GMX full dated snapshot

MUX

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

Read MUX full dated snapshot

SynFutures

Underlying review: 2026-10-24 · brief v1.1.0

No individual claim is mapped for this part of the comparison. This does not establish that the condition is safe, available or unchanged.

Read SynFutures full dated snapshot

Mapping published 2026-10-24. Original research dates and conclusions are unchanged.

Open comparison claim mappings v1.2.0
Inspect GMX source snapshotInspect MUX source snapshotInspect SynFutures source snapshot

Evidence boundary

No invented rates. No implied guarantees.

  • Matched executable quotes including entry, holding and exit costs
  • Independent fill, stop-loss and withdrawal reliability
  • Current permissions, recovery and revocation behaviour
  • Individual eligibility and current regional restrictions

No numerical all-in cost is calculated. A valid comparison needs contemporaneous quotes for matching assets, product modes, notional sizes, directions and holding periods, with entry, holding and exit costs included.

Your research record

Keep the evidence.
Keep its limits.

The receipt preserves all underlying evidence snapshots and the comparison at version 1.1.0.

It is not a recommendation, approval, live quote or alert subscription. No account, balance, wallet or country is requested.

Scope
Perpetual trading across distinct product scopes
Collateral scope
Market, account and route dependent. No universal collateral equivalence or shared deployment is asserted.
Evidence version
1.1.0 / 2026-10-24
Live tested
No

Open evidence JSON

Change record

Reviewed dates, not inferred launch dates.

  1. DN evidence refresh

    Comparison refreshed to GMX 1.1.0, MUX 1.1.0 and SynFutures 1.1.0 after primary-source review. No matched live trade, routing, trigger, liquidity-removal, withdrawal or eligibility benchmark was performed.

  2. DN publication

    Initial comparison of pinned documentation snapshots. Evidence coverage differs; unsupported conditions remain unknown.

Review triggers: Changed official product, fee, margin or withdrawal documentation; A substantiated correction; The earliest underlying editorial review deadline. No automated provider surveillance runs for this brief.

How to use this research

Provider-reported describes the source of a statement, not an independent endorsement. Unknown and not measured identify evidence gaps. A documentation review does not confer an operational-status classification or establish user eligibility.

DN may receive compensation through commercial links elsewhere on the site. This comparison has no trading CTA or payout-based ranking. Documentation does not establish current operational status, safety or user eligibility.

Educational research only, not investment, legal or tax advice. Leveraged derivatives can cause substantial losses.

Report a correction