Aster vs Hyperliquid: The Technical Route and Market Competition of Decentralization Perpetual Exchanges

In 2025, there was a noticeable differentiation in the technical routes in the field of decentralized perpetual exchanges. Hyperliquid, as a leader in technology, provides a CEX-like experience by building a high-performance L1 chain; while Aster, as a rapidly rising innovator, achieves rapid rise through the BNB chain ecosystem and multi-module product design.

These two models represent different philosophies in the development of decentralized finance: infrastructure-first and ecosystem-first path choices. Analyzing the competitive landscape of these two major projects helps us understand the future direction of decentralized derivatives trading.

01 Architecture Design: The Philosophical Differences Between Customized Chains and Modular Expansion

Hyperliquid and Aster adopt fundamentally different approaches in their technical architectures, reflecting different design philosophies.

The core advantage of Hyperliquid lies in its foundational layer. The team built the Hyperliquid chain from scratch and added the EVM-compatible HyperEVM. At its core is the HyperBFT consensus mechanism, specifically adjusted for high-frequency trading, supporting up to 200,000 orders per second with sub-second finality.

This integrated design means that both the consensus and matching engines serve the transactions, resulting in very low latency and outstanding performance. All orders and matches are conducted entirely on-chain, providing a true CEX-level user experience.

Aster has chosen a different path. It launched directly on the BNB chain, quickly taking advantage of its large user base and liquidity. Due to the BNB chain's block time of about 3 seconds and TPS in the hundreds, Aster is currently unable to achieve the sub-second experience of Hyperliquid.

To bridge this gap, Aster relies on product design innovation: including a dual-mode design of simple mode and professional mode, as well as leverage trading capabilities of up to 1001 times.

02 Performance: Benchmarking Speed and User Experience

In terms of performance, the two platforms offer different advantages to meet the needs of different user groups.

The performance metrics of Hyperliquid are impressive: processing capacity of up to 200,000 orders per second, sub-second finality, and a fully on-chain order and matching engine. These features together provide unparalleled exchange speed and experience.

Aster may not currently match the original performance data of Hyperliquid, but it has narrowed the gap through clever product design. Its simple mode allows users to trade directly with ALP liquidity pools, providing a one-click operation suitable for retail users; the professional mode offers on-chain CLOB support for advanced orders and strategies.

In terms of fees, both platforms are competitive: Hyperliquid charges about 0.01% for maker fees and 0.03-0.05% for taker fees; Aster Pro charges 0.01% for maker fees and 0.035% for taker fees.

In terms of gas fees, Hyperliquid uses HYPE, which has lower costs due to load control; Aster uses BNB on the BNB chain, usually costing only a few cents per operation, but frequent operations may accumulate.

03 Product Innovation: Differentiated Features and Risk Management

The two exchanges have adopted different strategies in product innovation, catering to different user needs and risk preferences.

Aster's product innovation is bolder, offering leverage trading of up to 1001 times, far exceeding the common range of 50-100 times, which attracts high-risk users and attention. The platform also introduces unique stock perpetual contracts, supporting 24/7 trading of major US stocks, fully settled in cryptocurrency.

The hidden order feature is another innovation of Aster, addressing CZ's previous concerns about trader manipulation on a transparent order book. This feature allows large traders to conceal their trading intentions, preventing front-running.

Hyperliquid focuses more on enhancing the core trading experience, providing professional-grade trading tools and depth, attracting more institutions and high-frequency traders. Its technology-first approach ensures the platform's stability and reliability.

04 Security Model: Decentralization and Risk Control

The two platforms adopt different models in terms of security and Decentralization, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

Hyperliquid uses a PoS-BFT method. To enhance speed, it maintains a relatively small set of validators. Any HYPE holder can stake or delegate. Security depends on the scale of staking and token distribution.

Due to HYPE being widely airdropped rather than led by VCs, control is more decentralized. One risk point is bridging: USDC is transferred to Hyperliquid through the official bridge, and bridging is often a common weak link.

Aster currently relies entirely on the security of the BNB chain. The BNB chain has 21 validators, which makes it more centralized. Aster lacks control over the underlying layer at this stage.

At the application level, Aster uses auditing, risk control, and oracle to maintain fair pricing. For example, the perpetual contracts for stocks rely on oracle prices - if the oracle fails, it could lead to systemic risks.

05 Market Performance: Comparison of Trading Volume and User Growth

Despite differing technical architectures, both exchanges have achieved significant success in market performance.

Hyperliquid, as a market pioneer, once held over 80% of the market share, establishing a strong first-mover advantage. Its depth and liquidity have created a solid moat, maintaining a clear lead in the short term.

Aster has shown an astonishing rise. In just a few months, it attracted billions of dollars in trading volume, reaching $33 billion in a single month, and launched its native token ASTER in September 2025.

The token launch performed exceptionally strong: the price surged 1650% within 24 hours, trading volume reached $345 million, and TVL broke $1 billion, attracting 330,000 new users. The total number of users on the platform has reached 1.848 million, with 617,000 new users in the last 7 days.

06 Development Roadmap: Future Planning and Technological Evolution

Both exchanges have ambitious development plans aimed at further enhancing their competitive advantages.

Hyperliquid needs to avoid stagnation. It should add more types of products to expand the breadth of its ecosystem, otherwise it may lose market share. Continuously optimizing its core technology and improving performance is also key.

The Aster project plans to develop the Aster Chain, utilizing zero-knowledge proof technology. The goal is to break through the limitations of the BNB chain, improve performance, and enhance privacy protection. If the migration is successful, the performance gap should be significantly reduced.

Aster also plans to incorporate ZK technology into the Aster Chain. This can conceal large orders, defend against front-running, and enhance MEV resistance and censorship resistance at the consensus layer. Compared to Hyperliquid's current small validator set, if Aster combines ZK with a more open validator design, it may achieve a differentiated balance of performance, privacy, and Decentralization.

07 Market Landscape: The Possibility of Duopoly and Its Industry Impact

Analysis suggests that Hyperliquid and Aster may form a duopoly in the future of decentralized perpetual contracts. This competition is beneficial for both the industry and users.

Competition will enhance the entire market: users will experience lower latency and smoother transactions; in terms of security and privacy, ZK and MEV defenses can be extended across the industry; regarding fees and incentives, competition drives platforms to reduce costs and increase user rewards.

Hyperliquid is a "tech-driven performance beast," establishing an early lead through customized L1 and fair distribution. Aster is a "market-driven innovative dark horse," leveraging the tailwinds of the ecosystem and bold risk characteristics to achieve excellence.

When Aster Chain goes live, both will compete on the same level. A dual monopoly may emerge in the future, bringing users a richer, faster, and safer decentralized exchange.

Conclusion

The competition between Hyperliquid and Aster reflects a healthy development trend of diversified technological routes in the field of Decentralization finance. Both exchanges pursue the same goal through different paths: to provide users with a better decentralized trading experience.

The technology-driven Hyperliquid offers unparalleled performance through a customized chain, while the market-driven Aster achieves rapid growth through product innovation and ecosystem utilization. This competition will ultimately drive the entire industry forward, providing users with more choices, lower costs, and more advanced trading features.

The next 12-18 months will be a critical period as Aster plans to launch its own blockchain, while Hyperliquid needs to continue innovating to maintain its lead. Regardless of the outcome, the decentralized derivatives trading space will become richer and more mature due to the competition between these two giants.