GMX vs Aevo
Short answer: On data collected October 19, 2026, GMX scores 7.04/10 and Aevo 6.68/10, the top two of 14 perpetual DEXs, both with 100% of the score measured. They match on audits, track record, chain reach and latency. GMX wins on value locked ($213.0M against $14.7M); Aevo wins on having a status page. Hack history is not part of the perp DEX score, and DefiLlama lists a 2025 exploit on GMX's older V1 contracts; see below.
Data collected October 19, 2026 · Full perp DEX ranking · No affiliate links
GMX scores higher: 7.04/10 against 6.68/10. It leads on 1 of 6 criteria, Aevo on 1.
Criterion by criterion
Same category, same weights, heaviest criterion first. Open a row for each side’s reasoning and evidence.
Scale of value trusted30% of the scoreGMX leadsGMX7Aevo5Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Security audits26% of the scoreLevelGMX6Aevo6Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Track record18% of the scoreLevelGMX9Aevo9Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Multi-chain reach10% of the scoreLevelGMX8Aevo8Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Latency8% of the scoreLevelGMX10Aevo10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Status transparency8% of the scoreAevo leadsGMX2Aevo5Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Criterion by criterion
| Criterion (weight) | GMX | Aevo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scale of value trusted (30%) | 7 — $213.0M | 5 — $14.7M | GMX |
| Security audits (26%) | 6 — 1 audit link | 6 — 1 audit link | Level |
| Track record (18%) | 9 — 3.2 yr since listing | 9 — 3.5 yr since listing | Level |
| Multi-chain reach (10%) | 8 — 4 chains | 8 — 4 chains | Level |
| Latency (8%) | 10 — 146 ms | 10 — 106 ms | Level |
| Status transparency (8%) | 2 — none found | 5 — page exists, no parseable feed | Aevo |
| Score | 7.04 | 6.68 | |
| % measured | 100% | 100% |
Track record is time since each DefiLlama listing, a floor on true age. GMX's listing (August 2023) is for its current EVM deployment; the earlier GMX V1 contracts were operating before that, so GMX's real history is longer than 3.2 years.
What explains the 0.36-point gap
- Value locked: +0.60 for GMX. GMX holds about 14 times Aevo's value locked. On the log scale that is 7 against 5 on the heaviest criterion. Aevo's $14.7M is below the category median of $30.5M.
- Status transparency: +0.24 for Aevo. Aevo has a status page at status.aevo.xyz; the probe found no machine-readable feed, so it scores the neutral 5. GMX has no public status page found, so 2.
- Nothing else separates them. Both have one published audit link on DefiLlama (scored 6; a link can lead to several reports), four chains, sub-150 ms responses and three-plus years listed.
Incidents outside the score
The perp DEX weights put 0% on security record, so these do not move either score. DefiLlama's hack database (checked October 23, 2026) lists:
- GMX V1, July 9, 2025: reentrancy exploit, $42M, of which $40M is listed as returned.
- GMX V1, September 18, 2022: market manipulation, $565K.
- Aevo: no entry under its name.
Both GMX incidents are recorded against GMX V1, not the GMX EVM deployment whose value locked is scored here. Source: DefiLlama hacks.
What this comparison does not measure
Trading fees, funding rates, spreads, liquidation rules, market depth, maximum leverage, the markets each lists, KYC or jurisdiction limits, UX and support. Aevo also runs an options product (DefiLlama groups Aevo Perps and Aevo Options under one parent); the score here covers the perps entry only. Check each venue's documentation before trading.
Which fits which reader
- You want more capital behind the venue: GMX, by a wide margin on this snapshot.
- You want to be able to see outages: Aevo at least publishes a status page you can open; GMX has none found.
- You weight incident history: neither score includes it. GMX V1's 2025 exploit is the largest entry here, with most funds listed as returned; Aevo has none listed.
- You are comparing dYdX as well: dYdX ranks #7 at 5.84, mainly because DefiLlama lists no audit for it. See the full ranking.
Full evidence: GMX rating · Aevo rating · GMX company profile · How scores are built
The numbers side by side
| Measured | GMX | Aevo |
|---|---|---|
| Value locked | $213.0M | $14.7M |
| Published audits | 1 | 1 |
| Track record | 3.2 yr | 3.5 yr |
| Chains | 4 | 4 |
| Latency (our probe) | 146 ms | 106 ms |
| Status feed | none | unknown |
Where each one falls short
GMX
Status transparency: No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
Not for: Anyone who needs to know when it breaks: no status feed, so you find out it is down by discovering it yourself.
Aevo
Scale of value trusted: $14.7M in value locked (DefiLlama). Capital is the market voting with its money — scored on a log scale, so the jump from $10M to $100M counts for more than $10B to $20B.
Which to choose
Which scores higher, GMX or Aevo?+
GMX, 7.04 against 6.68 on October 19, 2026 data, on value locked.
Does the GMX exploit in 2025 affect its score?+
No. Security record carries 0% weight for perp DEXs, and the incident is recorded against GMX V1. Weigh it yourself.
What are Aevo's or GMX's trading fees?+
Fees are not scored. Check each venue's fee documentation.