How to Use GMX on Avalanche vs Arbitrum
Risk warning. Trading perpetual futures and other leveraged crypto-asset products is high risk. A large share of retail traders lose money, so never trade with money you cannot afford to lose entirely. Disclaimer
GMX charges identical fees on Arbitrum and Avalanche, the meaningful difference isn’t cost, it’s liquidity depth, and that difference genuinely affects your execution.
This guide is part of TradeOnDEX’s GMX how-to series within Perpetual Futures.
Disclosure: TradeOnDEX may earn a commission from links to GMX on this page, at no extra cost to you. Full details at the end of this article.
What’s identical between the two chains
- Fee structure: the same maker/taker fee rates apply on both chains, plus the same fee-split (63% to liquidity providers, 37% to the protocol) covered in the GM pool liquidity guide.
- Core trading mechanics: order types, oracle pricing, and the GM pool structure work the same way regardless of which chain you’re using.
What actually differs
Liquidity depth. Arbitrum has consistently deeper liquidity than Avalanche across GMX’s history, reported figures show total staked liquidity meaningfully higher on Arbitrum, and daily active liquidity providers running 2-3x higher than on Avalanche. Arbitrum functions as GMX’s primary, more actively used market; Avalanche remains supported but plays a secondary role.
This means for you, concretely: the same trade size can experience more price impact on Avalanche’s thinner pools than the equivalent trade on Arbitrum, independent of the fee rate being identical.
Network-level gas costs. Since you’re paying gas on whichever underlying chain you use, actual transaction costs depend on that network’s own gas market, separate from GMX’s own fee structure, which is identical across both.
How to decide which chain to use
- For most traders, Arbitrum is the more straightforward default, given its deeper liquidity and larger, more active user base.
- Consider Avalanche if you already hold funds there and want to avoid an extra bridging step, understanding you may see more price impact on larger trades.
- For liquidity provision specifically, deeper pools on Arbitrum generally mean your deposit represents a smaller share of a larger pool, which can mean more diluted but more stable fee income compared to a smaller Avalanche pool.
Risk: what the liquidity gap actually means for you
Thinner liquidity on Avalanche means larger trades can move the price more than the equivalent trade would on Arbitrum. This isn’t a fee difference, it’s a market-depth difference, and it matters most for larger position sizes, where price impact becomes a real cost independent of the stated fee rate.
A smaller, less liquid pool concentrates trader-counterparty risk differently for liquidity providers. As covered in the GM pool comparison guide, a thinner pool means a single large trader’s activity has more relative impact on that pool’s liquidity providers than the same activity would in a deeper Arbitrum pool.
Liquidity conditions aren’t fixed, they can shift over time as GMX’s ecosystem evolves. Treat any specific comparison of Arbitrum vs. Avalanche liquidity as a snapshot; check current metrics before making a large trading or liquidity-provision decision based on older data.
Bridging assets specifically to Avalanche adds a step (and its own smart contract risk) if you don’t already hold funds there. Weigh that additional friction and risk against the marginal benefit of avoiding a bridge to Arbitrum instead, especially if your primary funds are already on Ethereum-adjacent networks.
Arbitrum vs. Avalanche at a glance
| Arbitrum | Avalanche | |
|---|---|---|
| Fee structure | Same as Avalanche | Same as Arbitrum |
| Liquidity depth | Deeper, more actively used | Thinner, secondary market |
| Active liquidity providers | Higher | Lower (reported 2-3x fewer daily stakers) |
| Best suited for | Most traders, especially larger sizes | Traders already holding funds there, smaller sizes |
See it for yourself
Compare current liquidity metrics for the specific market you want to trade on both chains before committing to one, particularly for larger position sizes where price impact matters more. You can review both deployments at gmx.io.
Frequently asked questions
Does GMX charge different fees on Arbitrum vs. Avalanche?
No, the fee structure and fee-split are the same on both chains; the meaningful difference is liquidity depth, not cost.
Which chain has better liquidity for GMX trading?
Arbitrum has consistently deeper liquidity and more active participants than Avalanche, historically.
Should I bridge funds specifically to trade on Avalanche instead of Arbitrum?
Generally not necessary unless you already hold funds there, the added bridging step and its own risk usually outweigh the benefit for most traders, given Arbitrum’s deeper liquidity.
Does thinner liquidity on Avalanche matter for small trades too?
Less so, price impact from thinner liquidity matters most for larger trade sizes; small trades are less affected by the liquidity gap between the two chains.
Affiliate disclosure
TradeOnDEX may earn a commission if you trade through a link on this page, at no extra cost to you. GMX’s own affiliate/referral terms are still being confirmed for this site, so links here are direct and untracked for now. This article is educational and is not financial advice. See our disclaimer for the full risk warning.
Risk warning
Trading crypto assets, and leveraged products based on them such as perpetual futures ("perps"), is high risk. A large share of retail traders lose money on these products. Leverage magnifies gains and losses alike and can push your loss beyond the amount you put in. Positions can be closed automatically (liquidation) before you get a chance to react, and some of the platforms we cover offer no negative balance protection.
Never trade with money you cannot afford to lose entirely. TradeOnDEX gives no investment advice, no personal recommendation, and no guarantee of any outcome. Every decision you make is your own decision and your own responsibility.