# Entropy vs trade.xyz: HIP-3 Deployers Compared

> trade.xyz runs 101 HIP-3 markets to Entropy's two and charges the same fees. We compare volume, market coverage and the one ticker where they overlap.

*Source: https://entropyguides.com/compare/entropy-vs-trade-xyz*

**Entropy vs trade.xyz**

*EntropyGuides is an independent site with no relationship to Entropy or trade.xyz. Links to Entropy carry our referral code. Figures below were pulled from the Hyperliquid `info` API and `entropy.io/api/markets` on 2026-08-26 and move daily.*

Two HIP-3 deployers, one settlement layer, one shared ticker. trade.xyz is the incumbent and effectively the category itself. Entropy is seven days old and has two markets. The comparison people expect (which one is cheaper) has no answer, because both rent the same fee schedule from Hyperliquid. The comparison that matters is coverage, depth, and who is actually responsible for the market you are about to trade.

> **Key takeaway:** trade.xyz wins on every measure of scale: 101 live markets, roughly 33x the daily notional, about 97% of all HIP-3 volume, and the deepest pre-IPO book on Hyperliquid. Entropy's case rests on exactly one asset trade.xyz does not carry, `io:ANTH` on Anthropic. Fees are identical by construction, so anyone selling you a fee angle between these two is inventing one.

## The scoreboard, 2026-08-26

| | Entropy (`io`) | trade.xyz (`xyz`) |
|---|---|---|
| Live markets deployed | **2** | **101** |
| 24h notional | $66,194,725 | $2,185,674,334 |
| Open interest | $7,956,907 | $3,647,358,273 |
| 24h deployer fees | $5,982 | $299,359 |
| All-time deployer fees | $11,206 | $55,885,001 |
| First trade | 2026-08-19 | Well established |
| Pre-IPO markets | 1 (`io:ANTH`) | Several, led by `xyz:SPCX` |
| Fee schedule | HIP-3 standard | HIP-3 standard |
| Growth Mode | Enabled on both markets | Enabled |
| Token | None | None |

Read the fee rows carefully. trade.xyz has earned more in all-time deployer fees than Entropy has in total volume. That is not a knock on Entropy, which posted the second-highest 24 hour volume of any HIP-3 deployer within a week of launching. It is a statement about what a week of history buys you.

![Entropy's io:ANTH terminal showing the order book, mark price against oracle price, 24h volume and the 3x leverage badge](/images/shared/entropy-anth-terminal.webp)

## Fees: the same schedule, and it is not close to a differentiator

Every HIP-3 market pays a rate set by Hyperliquid, not by the deployer who lists it. Entropy's own documentation states it plainly:

> "Fees on HIP-3 markets are 2x the standard validator-operated perp rate. The protocol fee is split evenly between Hyperliquid and the deployer."

Two times the 0.015% maker and 0.045% taker base gives 0.030% and 0.090%. Then both venues apply the same discount lever:

> "When growth mode is enabled on a market, all fees, rebates, and volume contribution scale by 0.1 (a 90% reduction)."

Growth Mode is live on `io:ANTH` and `io:SNDK`, switched on 2026-08-19 at 14:12 UTC, which puts Entropy's live rate at 0.0030% maker and 0.0090% taker. trade.xyz runs Growth Mode too and publishes a full tier table reaching 0.00288% taker at the top. The two schedules sit within a rounding error of each other.

| Fee input | Entropy | trade.xyz |
|---|---|---|
| Base perp rate (Hyperliquid) | 0.015% / 0.045% | 0.015% / 0.045% |
| HIP-3 multiplier | 2x | 2x |
| Effective before Growth Mode | 0.030% / 0.090% | 0.030% / 0.090% |
| Growth Mode multiplier | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Live rate on the markets we measured | 0.0030% / 0.0090% | 0.0030% / 0.0090% |
| Volume tiers and HYPE staking discounts | Hyperliquid's, applied identically | Hyperliquid's, applied identically |

We can show the Entropy number is real rather than theoretical. Take the `io` dex 24 hour notional of $66,194,725, apply 0.009%, and you get $5,958. DefiLlama independently reported $5,982 in 24 hour fees for the same window. That is a ratio of 1.00, so the all-in taker cost is behaving exactly as the published multipliers predict.

None of that makes Entropy cheap relative to trade.xyz. It makes both of them cheap relative to a centralized venue, for the same reason, using the same lever. Growth Mode is also a switch the operator controls, and neither deployer has committed to a date for turning it off. Our [fees breakdown](/guides/fees/entropy-fees-explained) walks through the arithmetic and the non-trading costs (the $1 Hyperliquid activation charge, the $1 bridge withdrawal, the $0.20 CCTP route) that actually move the needle for small accounts.

> **Note:** Where the two do differ is the rebate program layered on top. Entropy publishes a four-tier referral structure, but every percentage in it is calculated against Entropy's roughly 50% share of the HIP-3 fee, not against the fee you paid. Their own worked example: a 50% self rebate on $100 of fees returns $25. Details in our [referral explainer](/referral).

## Markets: one asset separates them

Entropy deploys two markets. That is the whole `io` inventory.

| Ticker | Underlying | Type | Max leverage | Deployer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `io:ANTH` | Anthropic | Pre-IPO perp | 3x | Entropy |
| `io:SNDK` | SanDisk | Equity perp | 10x | Entropy |
| `io:OAI` | OpenAI | Pre-IPO perp | 3x | Entropy, delisted, never traded |
| `io:IONQ` | IonQ | Equity perp | 20x | Entropy, delisted, never traded |
| `io:NBIS` | Nebius | Equity perp | 20x | Entropy, delisted, never traded |

 `io:ANTH` is the exclusive one. trade.xyz does not list Anthropic, so if you want on-chain exposure to an Anthropic valuation through a HIP-3 market, Entropy is the only deployer offering it. Read the [Anthropic pre-IPO guide](/guides/trading/anthropic-pre-ipo-perp) before you size a position, because the quote convention catches people out: `io:ANTH` is denominated so that $1 of price equals $1B of implied market capitalization. A mark of 1995.2 is an implied valuation near $2.00 trillion, not a share price.

The three delisted `io` assets are on-chain and unexplained. Crypto Briefing framed the August 24 announcement as a relaunch following an earlier market closure. Entropy has not published a reason for the delistings and we are not going to guess at one.

Meanwhile the pre-IPO cohort Entropy is positioning around already trades on trade.xyz, at size:

| Market | Underlying | 24h notional (2026-08-26) | Deployer |
|---|---|---|---|
| `xyz:SPCX` | SpaceX | $109.0M | trade.xyz |
| `xyz:UNITREE` | Unitree | $33.4M | trade.xyz |
| `xyz:ZHIPU` | Zhipu AI | $7.2M | trade.xyz |
| `io:ANTH` | Anthropic | $13.6M | Entropy |

`xyz:SPCX` alone did roughly eight times the volume of Entropy's flagship on the day we measured. trade.xyz also carries `xyz:CBRS` (Cerebras), `xyz:MINIMAX`, `xyz:QNT` (Quantinuum), `xyz:CXMT` and `xyz:KIOXIA` in the same cohort, plus index, commodity and FX markets. Every one of those is trade.xyz's market. trade.xyz sets its parameters, runs its oracle, and holds the keys that can halt it. If you trade `xyz:SPCX`, your counterparty risk profile is trade.xyz's, whichever frontend you clicked it on.

## Head to head on SNDK, the only shared ticker

 SanDisk is the single asset both deployers list, which makes it the only clean read on how the two compete for the same flow.

| | Entropy `io:SNDK` | trade.xyz `xyz:SNDK` |
|---|---|---|
| 24h notional | $53.9M | $178.8M |
| Share of combined | **23.2%** | 76.8% |
| Max leverage | 10x | Per trade.xyz's parameters |
| Margin mode | strictIsolated (per the API) | Per trade.xyz's parameters |

23.2% of combined SNDK volume for a venue on day seven is a genuinely strong number. It is also volatile: Castle Labs measured Entropy's share at 12% on 2026-08-25, which means it roughly doubled in a day. Any article quoting "12%" is already stale, and so, probably, is ours. Check the live split before you act on it. Our [SNDK market guide](/guides/trading/sandisk-sndk-perp) covers the LULD bands (plus or minus 10% outside the cash session on the Entropy market) that get overnight orders rejected on either venue.

The practical trading question on SNDK is depth, not deployer loyalty. A 23% share of volume does not guarantee 23% of resting size at the touch. Check both books before routing anything above a few thousand dollars of notional, because a fee advantage of zero basis points is worth nothing against a worse fill.

## The structural oddity: Entropy distributes its competitor's inventory

Query `entropy.io/api/markets` without a key and you get 319 markets from six venues:

| Venue | Markets on Entropy's frontend |
|---|---|
| Hyperliquid core | 177 |
| **trade.xyz (`xyz`)** | **101** |
| Paragon (`para`) | 19 |
| HyENA (`hyna`) | 18 |
| Markets By Kinetiq (`mkts`) | 2 |
| **EntropyIO (`io`)** | **2** |

So 317 of the 319 markets on Entropy's interface belong to somebody else, and the single largest block belongs to the competitor it is fighting for deployer fees. Entropy earns builder-side economics on order flow it routes, while trade.xyz earns the deployer share of every `xyz` fill regardless of which app produced it. Both things are true at once, and no rule in HIP-3 prevents it, because the fee split is enforced at the protocol layer rather than the interface.

For a reader, the operational consequence is simple: the venue whose brand is on the browser tab is frequently not the venue whose keys control your market. Our [HIP-3 explainer](/ecosystem/hip-3-explained) and the [deployer comparison](/ecosystem/hip-3-deployers-compared) map who controls what.

> **Warning:** Entropy's referral rebates apply only to Entropy-deployed markets, meaning `io:ANTH` and `io:SNDK`. Trading `xyz:SPCX` through entropy.io generates no Entropy referral rebate. Entropy's docs are explicit that the program covers "Entropy deployed markets" only.

## Documentation, and an observation we will leave as an observation

 Paragon, HyENA and Markets By Kinetiq each document their mechanics differently. Entropy's docs are structurally close to trade.xyz's: the same GitBook section tree, and the HIP-3 fee page carries the same "2x the standard rate, split evenly with Hyperliquid" construction. Both are describing identical protocol behavior, so identical phrasing is not by itself remarkable, and we have no information about how either document was produced. We note the resemblance because anyone who reads both documents will spot it, and we leave it at that.

What the docs do not cover is more useful. The string "builder" appears zero times in Entropy's entire documentation corpus, yet approving a builder fee is a mandatory onboarding step. The configured charged rate in the shipped code is `0`, while the approval a user signs authorizes a `maxFeeRate` of 1%. We cover the observable mechanics of that in [is Entropy safe](/privacy/is-entropy-safe).

## Track record and failure modes

trade.xyz has months of live operation and is growing around 35% month over month. Entropy has days. Neither has a token, and neither has published a smart contract audit, which is structurally consistent for HIP-3 deployers because they deploy no contracts of their own. Market configuration risk sits with the deployer; execution, margin and clearing risk sits with Hyperliquid.

That does not make either one benign. HIP-3 markets have no liquidator vault backstop, so auto-deleveraging is the immediate fallback after order-book liquidation and cannot be opted out of on either venue. Both deployers hold keys that can halt trading, which per Hyperliquid's HIP-3 documentation cancels all orders and settles positions to the current mark price. And the thinner pre-IPO books on both sides have already produced violent prints. Ventuals, the previous occupant of the pre-IPO niche, saw its SpaceX perp fall 45% before winding down in June 2026, and its deployer compensated affected traders. If you are arriving from that venue, our [Ventuals migration guide](/compare/ventuals-alternative) maps where each of its markets went.

## Which one to use

**Use trade.xyz** if you want SpaceX, Cerebras, Unitree, Zhipu, SK Hynix, index or commodity exposure, if you are trading size that needs depth, or if you want a venue with more than a week of continuous operation behind it.

**Use Entropy** if you specifically want `io:ANTH`, since no other HIP-3 deployer carries Anthropic. Its rebate program is also more generous on its own two markets than the fee difference between the venues, which is zero. If you are choosing between Anthropic venues generally rather than between HIP-3 deployers, Coinbase runs a CFTC-regulated ANTHROPIC-PERP contract and belongs in that comparison. See [where to trade Anthropic pre-IPO](/compare/where-to-trade-anthropic-pre-ipo).

**Use both** if you trade SNDK, and route on depth rather than brand.

Entropy is restricted for trading from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Panama per its terms, and its geo endpoint returns `restricted:true` with `"mode":"trading"` from a US IP. Check [restricted countries](/privacy/entropy-restricted-countries) before you deposit anything.

[Get started](https://entropy.io/?r=concept211)

Nothing here is legal, tax or investment advice, and none of it is a recommendation to trade. Read Entropy's own risk disclosure and terms, read trade.xyz's, and talk to a professional about your own situation. Our [methodology](/methodology) explains how we pull these numbers, and the [disclaimer](/disclaimer) covers what this site is and is not.