149Views
Hyperliquid vs 4 competitors
PublicValuation Multiples: P/S & P/F (FDV-based, live)
Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV)-to-Sales (P/S) and FDV-to-Fees (P/F) ratios — computed live from current FDV divided by annualized (30d run-rate) fees/revenue:
| Protocol | FDV | Fees (30d) | Revenue (30d) | P/F Ratio (FDV) | P/S Ratio (FDV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyperliquid | $60.13B | $80.98M | $59.96M | 61.88x | 83.57x |
| Aster | $4.90B | $6.28M | n/a (no revenue tracked) | 65.03x | n/a |
| Lighter | $1.98B | $3.90M | $2.90M | 42.46x | 57.08x |
| edgeX | $253.4M | $9.46M | $5.65M | 2.23x | 3.74x |
| dYdX | $145.2M | $102.7K | $102.7K | 117.81x | 117.81x |
Key takeaways (FDV-based, not mcap): Using FDV instead of mcap materially raises multiples for tokens with large future unlocks — Hyperliquid's P/F sits at ~62x and P/S at ~84x on a $60B FDV, since only a portion of supply is currently circulating. edgeX remains by far the cheapest on a fully-diluted basis (P/F ~2.2x) despite generating the second-highest 30d fees in the group — its FDV hasn't caught up to its fee generation. dYdX is the most expensive (~118x on both metrics) given its shrunken fee/revenue base relative to FDV. Aster has no separately tracked revenue figure, so only its P/F is shown. Lighter sits mid-pack, trading richer than edgeX but well below Hyperliquid, Aster, and dYdX.