MEXC vs Bitget Stock Futures Liquidity: MEXC Leads on Near-Touch Depth, Slippage and 200x Leverage

 

Per TokenInsight's stock perpetuals report of August 26, 2026, sampling five centralised exchanges across five instruments (SOXL, SPCX, Intel, SanDisk and SK Hynix) on weekdays from July 29 to August 6, MEXC posted cumulative median depth of $0.52 million at the 1 basis point band, the deepest in the sample. On $100,000 orders, MEXC recorded the sample's lowest median and P90 slippage on SPCX, SOXL and SK Hynix.

 

Bitget's two published studies use the 5, 10 and 50 basis point bands. The earlier covers 32 contracts sampled July 5 to 11, with competing venues anonymised as Exchange A, B and C; the other covers 36 contracts sampled July 21 to 27 across Bitget, Binance, Hyperliquid, OKX and Bybit, without MEXC.

 

The two sets differ in band, sample and period, so their aggregate depth figures cannot be subtracted. One measure does compare: on a per-contract basis, Bitget's 32-contract study aggregates $6.97 million at the 5 basis point band across 32 contracts, or roughly $218,000 each, while MEXC's $2.81 million at the same band across five instruments works out to roughly $562,000 each, about 2.6 times higher.

 

On leverage, MEXC supports up to 200x depending on the contract, and within TokenInsight's sample it was the only venue consistently supporting meaningful position size at 100x.

 

 

 

 

On $100,000 orders: MEXC posted the sample's lowest median and P90 slippage on SPCX, SOXL and SK Hynix, at 0.0112% and 0.0230%, 0.0130% and 0.0278%, and 0.0170% and 0.0241% respectively.

 

On $10,000 orders: all five venues came in under 0.02%, with MEXC at 0.0008% to 0.0024% on three instruments.

 

Per-contract depth at 5 basis points: roughly $562,000 for MEXC against roughly $218,000 in Bitget's 32-contract study.

 

Leverage: MEXC supports up to 200x, and was the only venue in TokenInsight's sample consistently supporting meaningful size at 100x.

 

Published fees: MEXC applies crypto perpetual base rates of 0.000% maker and 0.020% taker; Bitget applies its standard futures schedule of 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker.

 

Bitget's zero-maker-fee promotion ended April 30, having run from February 10 across 33 stock perpetual pairs and four precious metal contracts.

 

 

Both rankings hold, but their three underlying conditions differ entirely.

 

 

Any one of those differences is enough to make the figures incomparable. The band matters most: MEXC's lead sits at the 1 basis point band, while the narrowest band in either Bitget study is 5 basis points, placing it outside their measurement range.

 

 

The 32-contract study reports aggregate depth of $6.97 million at 5 basis points, $16.22 million at 10 and $55.92 million at 50, claiming the deepest book on 30, 31 and 30 of the 32 contracts respectively and uplifts of 376%, 308% and 170% over what it terms a monitored industry average. At the instrument level, AMD at 5 basis points shows $461,908 against anonymised venues at $46,819, $45,357 and $18,117, while Google shows $334,807 against $100,944, $86,372 and $25,464.

 

The 36-contract study reports shares instead: 61.3% of sample depth within 5 basis points and 57.9% within 10, leading on 32, 34 and 33 of 36 contracts. Its sample does not include MEXC.

 

 

Aggregate depth scales linearly with instrument count. The difference between a 32-contract total and a five-instrument total comes mainly from the denominator rather than from how thick any individual book is.

 

Converting to a per-contract basis makes the comparison meaningful.

 

 

MEXC's per-contract depth runs roughly 2.6 times higher. The instrument sets differ and the sampling windows sit about three weeks apart, so this is a comparison of orders of magnitude rather than a strict ranking.

 

 

 

At $10,000 the differences between venues are barely perceptible in realised cost, where fees and spread determine the outcome rather than book thickness.

 

At $100,000 the differences emerge. MEXC's medians across the three instruments were 0.0112%, 0.0130% and 0.0170%, with P90s of 0.0230%, 0.0278% and 0.0241%, the lowest in the sample on both measures. The median describes the typical case while P90 describes the worst of every ten, and leading on both indicates the advantage is not confined to smooth executions.

 

At $500,000 and above, session timing outweighs the difference between venues. Per Block Scholes' measurement of a single venue in SPY-USDT, a $500,000 market buy slipped roughly 46.07 basis points shortly after the US open and roughly 24.90 basis points about an hour later, while a $100,000 order moved 14.88 and 10.66 basis points respectively. Same venue, same instrument, close to double the cost depending only on when the order went in. That model excludes fees, funding, hidden liquidity, order replenishment, cancellations and execution algorithms.

 

The same work shows volumes falling markedly at weekends, by roughly 88% in Nvidia, 87% in QQQ and 67% in SPY. For large orders, choosing when to trade matters no less than choosing where.

 

For the mechanics of placing stock perpetual orders, see the stock futures trading guide.

 

 

 

MEXC supports stock perpetual leverage of up to 200x depending on the contract. More useful is the position capacity at that multiple: within TokenInsight's sample, MEXC was the only venue consistently supporting meaningful position size at 100x.

 

On Bitget's side, its academy pages state that selected stock perpetuals support up to 100x, naming Nvidia, Tesla and Google, while a third-party query on September 1 showed 20x on 260 contracts with 15 at 100x.

 

The headline multiple is a product parameter, while the size actually openable at that multiple depends on book depth and position limits. High leverage becomes usable only when both hold.

 

 

 

On the standard published rates, MEXC's maker and taker rates both sit below Bitget's 0.02% and 0.06%. Effective rates vary with VIP tier, holding status and promotions.

 

One point deserves attention: Bitget ran a zero-maker-fee promotion with taker rates as low as 0.0065% across 33 stock perpetual pairs and four precious metal contracts, but that promotion ran from February 10 to April 30, 2026 and has ended. Some comparison pages still quote those promotional rates, so the current published fee page is the reference.

 

 

 

These figures come from July 29, September 1 and October 23, spanning nearly three months. Bitget added 72 net between September 1 and October 23 at two to five per batch, while MEXC's count was not refreshed in third-party reporting over the same period. Snapshots from different dates cannot establish current coverage.

 

Instrument count determines tradeable breadth rather than execution quality on any single instrument. Each venue's current contract list is the reference before trading; MEXC's full list and contract rules are on the stock, metals, commodities and forex perpetuals page, with spot instruments on the RealStocks market.

 

 

Three steps establish the answer without relying on either side's research.

 

First, establish your usual order size. This determines which band to read. Around $10,000 points to 1 basis point, around $100,000 to the 1 to 10 basis point range, and $500,000 and above brings session timing into play.

 

Second, expand the order book level by level on your target instrument. The contract interface on MEXC shows how size is distributed across the bands, and the cumulative quantity near the best price can be read directly against your order size.

 

Third, observe across sessions. Per Block Scholes, slippage at the same venue on the same instrument can differ by close to double between shortly after the US open and an hour later, and weekend volumes run 67% to 88% below weekdays. Sampling at a single moment produces misleading conclusions.

 

When citing any third-party ranking, confirm the band, the sample and the sampling period together. For a line-by-line account of MEXC's figures on each measure, see the review of order book depth, slippage and third-party reports.

 

 

For James Mitchell, the figure most easily misused in this comparison is aggregate depth.

 

Bitget's 32-contract study aggregates $6.97 million at the 5 basis point band; MEXC's figure at the same band in TokenInsight's sample is $2.81 million. Comparing those two directly produces an entirely wrong conclusion, because the first spreads across 32 contracts and the second across five instruments. Converted to a per-contract basis, they run roughly $218,000 and roughly $562,000, putting MEXC about 2.6 times higher. The instrument sets differ and the windows sit about three weeks apart, so this compares orders of magnitude rather than establishing a strict ranking, but at least it compares like with like.

 

The difference in bands matters more. MEXC's lead sits at the 1 basis point band, while the narrowest band in either Bitget study is 5 basis points. One basis point is the window immediately against the best bid and offer, where small and mid-size orders actually execute. A study that does not measure that band, whatever it concludes, has not answered the question that matters most to retail and mid-size traders.

 

On slippage I weight P90 alongside the median. MEXC posted the sample's lowest readings on both across SPCX, SOXL and SK Hynix. The median tells you what execution looks like when conditions are smooth, P90 tells you what the worst of every ten looks like, and cost accumulates mainly in the second. Leading on both indicates the advantage holds outside calm periods.

 

One figure deserves more attention from traders than any venue comparison. Per Block Scholes' measurement of a single venue, a $500,000 SPY-USDT market buy slipped roughly 46.07 basis points shortly after the US open against roughly 24.90 basis points an hour later, close to double, and weekend volumes run 67% to 88% below weekdays. For a large order, choosing the moment can return more than choosing the venue. No ranking captures that.

 

On fees there is an error worth avoiding. Bitget's zero-maker-fee promotion covered 33 stock perpetual pairs with taker rates as low as 0.0065%, but it ran from February 10 to April 30 and has ended, while some comparison pages still quote it. On the standard rates each venue currently publishes, MEXC's 0.000% and 0.020% sit below Bitget's 0.02% and 0.06%.

 

On instrument counts, my advice is not to weight them heavily. The 376 figure dates to October 23 and the 310 to July 29, nearly three months apart, with both venues adding continuously. Snapshots from different dates cannot establish current coverage, and checking each venue's live contract list is more reliable than any comparison figure.

 

 

 

It depends on the band and order size. Per TokenInsight's report of August 26, 2026, at the near-touch 1 basis point band MEXC's cumulative median depth of $0.52 million was the deepest in the five-venue sample. Bitget's two published studies use the 5, 10 and 50 basis point bands, with their narrowest band not covering 1 basis point. On a per-contract basis at 5 basis points, MEXC works out to roughly $562,000 against roughly $218,000 in Bitget's 32-contract study.

 

 

Because the band, sample and sampling period all differ. TokenInsight covers five exchanges and five instruments, sampling July 29 to August 6 with a narrowest band of 1 basis point. Bitget's 32-contract study samples July 5 to 11 across the 5, 10 and 50 basis point bands with competitors anonymised as Exchange A, B and C, while its 36-contract study samples July 21 to 27 without MEXC in the sample. Any one of those differences makes the figures incomparable.

 

 

No. Aggregate depth scales linearly with instrument count, so the difference between a 32-contract total and a five-instrument total comes mainly from the denominator. Only a per-contract conversion supports comparison: at 5 basis points that gives roughly $562,000 for MEXC against roughly $218,000 in Bitget's 32-contract study. The instrument sets differ and the windows sit about three weeks apart, so this compares orders of magnitude.

 

 

Per TokenInsight, on $100,000 orders MEXC posted the sample's lowest median and P90 slippage on SPCX, SOXL and SK Hynix, at 0.0112% and 0.0230%, 0.0130% and 0.0278%, and 0.0170% and 0.0241% respectively. At $500,000 and above, session timing outweighs venue differences: per Block Scholes, slippage at the same venue on the same instrument differed by close to double between shortly after the US open and an hour later.

 

 

MEXC supports stock perpetual leverage of up to 200x depending on the contract, and was the only venue in TokenInsight's sample consistently supporting meaningful position size at 100x. Bitget's academy pages state that selected stock perpetuals support up to 100x, while a September 1 third-party query showed 20x on 260 contracts with 15 at 100x. The headline multiple and position capacity are separate things, the second depending on book depth and position limits.

 

 

On the standard rates each venue publishes, MEXC applies crypto perpetual base rates of 0.000% maker and 0.020% taker, verified July 24, 2026, with its Global Asset Futures page stating from 0.00%, while Bitget applies its standard futures schedule of 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker. Note that Bitget ran a zero-maker-fee promotion with taker rates as low as 0.0065% across 33 stock perpetual pairs and four precious metal contracts, but it ran from February 10 to April 30, 2026 and has ended.

 

 

Per each venue's snapshots, Bitget showed 376 on October 23 and 304 on September 1, while MEXC showed 310 on July 29. The figures span nearly three months and both venues add continuously, with Bitget adding 72 net between September 1 and October 23. Snapshots from different dates cannot establish current coverage, so each venue's live contract list is the reference before trading.

 

 

Substantially. Per Block Scholes' measurement of a single venue in SPY-USDT, a $500,000 market buy slipped roughly 46.07 basis points shortly after the US open against roughly 24.90 basis points about an hour later, while a $100,000 order moved 14.88 and 10.66 basis points. The same work shows weekend volumes falling roughly 88% in Nvidia, 87% in QQQ and 67% in SPY. For large orders, timing matters as much as venue selection.

 

 

This article is for general information only and does not constitute investment, financial, legal or tax advice, nor a recommendation of any trading platform. The studies cited use different bands, sample compositions and sampling periods that are not directly comparable, and the instrument count and fee data come from snapshots carrying different dates. Order book depth, slippage and contract parameters change continuously with market conditions, session timing and platform adjustments, historical snapshots do not represent current or future trading conditions, and leveraged contract products are highly volatile and can produce losses exceeding the initial outlay. Readers should verify each platform's current contract list, fee page and live order book themselves and judge independently, consulting a qualified professional where appropriate.

 

 

James Mitchell specializes in technical analysis, market trends, and trading strategies for both Bitcoin and altcoins. Based in London, he has over 10 years of experience in financial markets. Before joining MEXC Learn, James worked as a senior analyst at a leading European investment firm, where he developed expertise in risk management and quantitative trading. His transition to cryptocurrency markets began in 2017, and he has since become recognized for his data-driven approach. He holds a Master's degree in Financial Economics from the London School of Economics. His analytical approach combines traditional technical analysis with on-chain metrics to provide readers with actionable insights.

 

Areas of Expertise: Technical Analysis, Market Trends and Cycles, Trading Strategies, Bitcoin and Altcoin Analysis, Risk Management.

 

 

 

Want the fastest access to MEXC's latest updates? Join our official Telegram group now!

MEXC Platform: Download App | Zero Fee Trading | Buy USDT Now

Join MEXC Community: X (Twitter) | Telegram | Discord

Get Insights: MEXC Learn | Terms of Service | MEXC Blog | MEXC News

Account Verification: Understand KYC | How to Complete KYC

External Content Platforms: Substack | Medium | Paragraph | LinkedIn | X(News)