Protocol Comparison

Continuum vs GMX: Cross-Chain Synthetic Comparison

Comparing Solana and Arbitrum approaches to synthetic trading

How Continuum on Solana compares to GMX on Arbitrum for synthetic and leveraged trading.

Continuum

Solana

Paired L/S Token Protocol

Chain
Solanaexcellent
Fee Model
DEX swap fees onlyexcellent
Liquidity Model
AMM-based per pairgood
Position Type
Transferable tokensexcellent
Funding/Borrow
Noneexcellent
Oracle
Pyth Networkexcellent
Composability
Full ecosystemexcellent

Pros

  • Fastest L1 chain for trading
  • Near-zero transaction costs
  • No funding or borrowing fees
  • Tokens composable across DeFi

Cons

  • Solana ecosystem only
  • Newer protocol
  • Smaller initial liquidity

GMX

Arbitrum / Avalanche

Perpetual DEX with GLP

Chain
Arbitrum / Avalanchegood
Fee Model
0.1% position + borrowfair
Liquidity Model
GLP pool for all assetsgood
Position Type
Non-transferable contractsfair
Funding/Borrow
Hourly borrow feefair
Oracle
Chainlink + keepergood
Composability
Limitedfair

Pros

  • Battle-tested since 2021
  • Deep GLP liquidity pool
  • Zero price impact trades
  • Multi-chain deployment

Cons

  • Borrow fees add up over time
  • Positions not transferable
  • GLP holders take counterparty risk

Our Verdict

Continuum offers superior speed, costs, and composability on Solana. GMX provides battle-tested infrastructure with deeper liquidity for traders preferring EVM chains.

Which Should You Use?

Solana-native DeFi users

Continuum

Native to your ecosystem with full composability

EVM chain preference

GMX

Available on Arbitrum and Avalanche

Large position sizes

GMX

Deeper GLP liquidity pool for minimal slippage

Cost-sensitive trading

Continuum

Lower fees with no borrow costs

Yield on liquidity

GMX

GLP earns trading fees and rewards

More Comparisons

Try Continuum Today

See why traders are choosing Continuum for synthetic asset trading on Solana.

Get Early Access