MEXC vs Bitget Stock Futures Liquidity: Which Order Book Wins for Your Trade Size?

 

Both venues claim the deeper book in stock perpetuals, and both sets of data hold up, because they measure different bands.

 

In TokenInsight's five-venue report published August 26, 2026, MEXC recorded cumulative median depth of $0.52 million at the 0.01% band, or one basis point, ranking first, with $2.81 million at 0.05% and $5.99 million at 0.10%, second at both. Bitget's two self-published studies place it first for aggregate depth at the 5, 10 and 50 basis point bands.

 

These conclusions coexist because the bands barely overlap. TokenInsight measured 1, 5 and 10 basis points while Bitget measured 5, 10 and 50, leaving only the middle two in common. At those two overlapping bands, TokenInsight places MEXC second without publishing who placed first, and Bitget's studies either anonymise their comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C or use a sample in which MEXC does not appear.

 

The honest conclusion is that no public study currently permits a direct comparison of MEXC and Bitget order book depth. What can be confirmed is that each ranks first at different bands in different samples, and which band matters to you depends on how deep into the book your order will reach. This article unpacks both methodologies, gives a decision rule by order size, and closes with three verification steps that rely on neither side's research.

 

 

 

The two studies barely overlap on bands. TokenInsight measured 1, 5 and 10 basis points while Bitget measured 5, 10 and 50, leaving only the middle two in common.

 

Neither side can be compared at the overlapping bands. TokenInsight ranks MEXC second without naming the leader, while Bitget's own study anonymises its comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C and its 36-contract study contains no mention of MEXC.

 

MEXC's advantage concentrates at the narrowest band and in small to mid-size orders. It ranked first for depth at one basis point and posted the lowest median and P90 slippage on $100,000 orders in three of the five instruments tested.

 

Bitget's advantage lies in wide bands and large orders within its own samples. Its research shows aggregate depth of roughly $55.92 million at the 50 basis point band, leading on 30 of 32 contracts.

 

Bitget currently leads on instrument count. It reached 376 on October 23, 2026, while MEXC's publicly citable 310 is a July 29 snapshot, nearly three months earlier.

 

Bitget discloses its fees more completely. Bitget publishes 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker for stock perpetuals, while MEXC publishes no stock-perpetual-specific schedule.

 

 

 

This report was published by a third-party research firm on August 26, 2026, collecting data through each venue's official API across five centralised exchanges and five instruments (SOXL, SPCX, Intel, SanDisk and SK Hynix), with a window spanning weekdays from July 29 to August 6.

 

 

The report's key limitation is that it does not name the four venues other than MEXC in its public summary. At the 0.05% and 0.10% bands, all that can be confirmed is that MEXC placed second, and the leader could be Bitget or any other venue in the sample. This article makes no assumption.

 

Note also that MEXC was not lowest across all five instruments at the $100,000 level, placing second or third on SanDisk and Intel, with the report not stating which venue led on those two.

 

 

Bitget has published two studies with similar methods but different samples, and citations should distinguish between them.

 

The first appears on its academy page dated August 18, 2026, covering 32 stock perpetual contracts over a window from July 5 to 11, measuring the 5, 10 and 50 basis point bands. Bitget's aggregate depth across those bands came to roughly $6.97 million, $16.22 million and $55.92 million, with the deepest book on 30 of 32 contracts at 5 basis points, 31 of 32 at 10, and 30 of 32 at 50. The page states these figures run 376%, 308% and 170% above a "monitored industry average."

 

That study anonymises its comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C, publishing neither a full sample list nor any stated exclusions, so whether MEXC was among them cannot be determined. Its per-contract examples at 5 basis points give AMD at $461,908 against $46,819, $45,357 and $18,117 for the three comparison venues, and Google at $334,807 against $100,944, $86,372 and $25,464.

 

The second covers 36 stock perpetual markets over a window from July 21 to 27, sampling Bitget, Binance, Hyperliquid, OKX and Bybit. Bitget held 61.3% of total sample depth within 5 basis points and 57.9% within 10, leading on 32, 34 and 33 of the 36 contracts at the three bands. MEXC appears nowhere in that study, neither in the sample nor as a stated exclusion.

 

Both studies were published by Bitget rather than an independent benchmarking firm, a point the third-party page republishing the research states explicitly. This is a methodological attribute rather than a judgement of quality, but it belongs in any citation.

 

 

Bitget's $6.97 million at 5 basis points spans 32 contracts, while MEXC's $2.81 million at the same band spans 5 instruments. With sample sizes differing more than sixfold, the aggregates are not comparable.

 

Averaged per contract, the first works out to roughly $218,000 and the second to roughly $562,000. That conversion cannot serve as a conclusion either, because the two samples hold entirely different instruments: TokenInsight measured SOXL, SPCX, Intel, SanDisk and SK Hynix, a set including leveraged ETFs and a non-US listing, while Bitget's examples are large-cap technology names such as AMD and Google. The natural book thickness of those two groups differs to begin with.

 

Subtracting aggregate depth across different samples, or treating a per-contract average as a ranking, produces wrong conclusions. This is the technical reason this article offers no single answer to which book is deeper.

 

 

A band is not an abstraction. It corresponds to how far your order pushes the price, and the test is the relationship between your order size and the cumulative depth at each band for that instrument.

 

 

The $10,000 tier deserves separate comment. TokenInsight's data shows all five venues slipping under 0.02% across all five instruments, a difference too small to matter. Debating which book is deeper at that size is unproductive, since what actually sets the cost is the maker and taker schedule plus the density of quotes within a few basis points of the touch.

 

The $100,000 tier is the only range where the two studies provide usable information, and the conclusion is partial: MEXC posted the lowest median and P90 on three of the five instruments tested. P90 means that in the worst tenth of cases slippage still stayed within that level, so lowest median and lowest P90 together indicate depth that persists rather than appearing intermittently. Those three instruments cannot stand in for all 310.

 

Orders above $500,000 lack any reliable comparison. Bitget's wide-band figures come from its own samples, which either anonymise the comparison venues or omit MEXC, and TokenInsight's measurement stops at ten basis points without covering this range. At this size, neither side's published data supports a choice, leaving direct measurement as the only option.

 

Block Scholes research covering Bitget's markets supplies one reference point unrelated to venue choice but worth having. A $500,000 market buy in SPY-USDT slipped roughly 46.07 basis points shortly after the US open and roughly 24.90 basis points about an hour later, with a $100,000 order corresponding to 14.88 and 10.66 basis points. The same order costs close to twice as much depending on when it is submitted. That research also notes its slippage model excludes fees, funding, hidden liquidity, order book replenishment, cancellations and execution algorithms.

 

For large orders, these figures suggest the gain from choosing the right session may match the gain from choosing the right venue.

 

 

 

On the latest available public data, Bitget leads here.

 

 

MEXC's 310 and Bitget's 376 sit nearly three months apart, and Bitget added 72 contracts net between September 1 and October 23, at two to five per batch. No public data covers MEXC's listings over the same period. This table therefore confirms that Bitget's current count exceeds MEXC's three-month-old snapshot, without establishing the current gap between the two. MEXC's present instrument count needs to be supplied by the product team and inserted here.

 

Counting methodology also warrants attention. Whether ETFs, leveraged ETFs, non-US listings and pre-IPO contracts are included can change a total several-fold, and the two venues may not count the same way.

 

 

Both venues advertise high leverage, but their public disclosure differs in granularity.

 

MEXC states in its official tutorial that stock futures leverage reaches up to 200x depending on the contract. TokenInsight describes the same venue from a different angle, calling it the only one in its sample consistently supporting meaningful size at 100x. These are two separate claims, the first a headline ceiling and the second the usable position size at that leverage.

 

Bitget's academy page says selected stock perpetuals support up to 100x depending on product and risk tier, without giving a count of qualifying contracts, naming Nvidia, Tesla and Google among its examples. A third-party query dated September 1 found Bitget offering 20x on 260 contracts with only 15 supporting 100x.

 

A headline multiple and an openable position are different things. The binding constraint is the position limit at that leverage, and both venues publish that only on their individual contract pages rather than in promotional material.

 

 

Bitget's public disclosure is more complete on this measure.

 

Bitget's official academy page states that stock perpetuals follow its standard futures schedule at 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker, noting that actual rates vary with VIP level, account status and promotions.

 

MEXC publishes no stock-perpetual-specific schedule. Its Global Asset Futures page states maker and taker fees "from 0.00%," a marketing formulation rather than a rate card. For reference, MEXC's crypto perpetual base rates, verified July 24, 2026, were 0.000% and 0.020%, but those cannot be assumed to carry over, since Bybit moved TradFi perpetuals into a separate fee group effective June 16 and carrying over crypto rates is not an industry norm.

 

One piece of expired information needs correcting. Bitget did reduce stock perpetual maker fees to zero and taker fees to as low as 0.0065%, covering 33 stock perpetual pairs and four precious metal contracts, but that promotion ran February 10 to April 30, 2026 and has ended. Several sites have re-indexed the announcement, making it easy to mistake for a current rate in search results. As of this article's verification date of October 27, 2026, Bitget stock perpetuals should fall under its standard futures schedule.

 

 

Both studies cover windows in July and early August, roughly three months ago, and neither permits a direct comparison. For anyone trading in size, measuring directly beats citing any ranking. Three steps need no specialist tools.

 

Read the book rather than the volume figure. Open the same instrument's contract page on both venues and compare, at the same moment, the best bid and ask spread along with the combined size resting in the first five levels. A volume ranking describes the past while the book describes what your order will meet now. Comparing at the same moment matters, because books change substantially across sessions.

 

Use the depth chart to read cumulative size. A depth chart plots price deviation on the horizontal axis against cumulative resting size on the vertical. Find your order size on the vertical axis and read down to the price deviation, which is your expected slippage. Recording that number for the same instrument on both venues gets closer to your actual situation than any third-party band ranking.

 

Check the risk limit and position cap. The real constraint on high leverage is not the headline multiple but the position limit at that tier. Find the risk limit or position tier table on the contract detail page and confirm your intended size is permitted at your target leverage. This step is the easiest to skip and the most likely to surface as a problem at the moment of opening.

 

The most direct method is a live test: submit several small market orders on each venue, record the fill price against the quote at the moment of submission, and take the median across repeats. Twenty minutes of this produces data closer to your own cost structure than any table in this article.

 

Readers new to the product can start with the mechanics of stock perpetuals and how to place an order, which covers contract structure, trading sessions and the handling of corporate actions. Anyone needing to distinguish perpetual contracts from owning actual shares can review the RealStocks spot market, where the differences in shareholder rights and dividends are substantial. For the full explanation of how bands change depth ranking conclusions, see our line-by-line review of order book depth, slippage and third-party reports.

 

On MEXC, review the full instrument list and contract rules for stock, metals, commodities and forex perpetuals, and check the leverage tiers, position limits and trading sessions for your instrument before opening a position.

 

 

For James Mitchell, the fact most worth recording in this comparison is that no public study currently permits a direct comparison of these two venues' order book depth, while both market themselves as first.

 

Nobody is lying. TokenInsight's report names MEXC while withholding the other four venues, Bitget's academy study writes its comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C, and its 36-contract study simply contains no MEXC. All three documents are internally consistent, yet assembled together they cannot answer which of the two quotes deeper. Two things can be confirmed: MEXC took first at one basis point in an independent third party's five-venue sample, and Bitget took first from 5 to 50 basis points in samples it published itself.

 

What readers most need to learn here is to identify the band. TokenInsight measured 1, 5 and 10 basis points while Bitget measured 5, 10 and 50, overlapping only in the middle two, and at precisely those two bands neither side published a verifiable competitor ranking. A study starting at 5 basis points cannot describe what happens at one, and a study stopping at 10 cannot describe capacity at 50. Both venues' claims to first place omit that qualifier.

 

Another common error is subtracting aggregate depth. Bitget's $6.97 million at 5 basis points spreads across 32 contracts while MEXC's $2.81 million spreads across 5 instruments, a sample gap of more than six times. Even averaging to $218,000 against $562,000 per contract fails, because the first set is drawn from large-cap technology names such as AMD and Google while the second includes a leveraged ETF in SOXL and a non-US listing in SK Hynix, groups whose natural book thickness differs to begin with. Any comparison placing those two figures in one table and subtracting should be read as marketing.

 

On instrument count, I want to state plainly that we are behind. Bitget stood at 376 on October 23 while the figure we can publicly cite, 310, dates to July 29, and Bitget added 72 contracts net between early September and late October. If our current number has not grown correspondingly, this is a real deficit, and publishing a stale comparison such as 310 against 235 would only ensure that a reader who checks once stops believing any figure on the page. Fee disclosure runs the same way: Bitget publishes 0.02% and 0.06% while we publish only "from 0.00%," and on a comparison page that is a weakness rather than a strength.

 

My advice to anyone trading size is not to treat this category of research as a decision input at all. Block Scholes data shows the same $500,000 SPY order slipping roughly 46 basis points shortly after the US open and roughly 25 an hour later, a gap of nearly double. That swing exceeds any venue-to-venue difference discussed in this article. In a category moving this fast, twenty minutes of small test orders on both venues yields better information than a third-party report from three months ago.

 

 

 

No public study compares the two directly. TokenInsight's five-venue sample places MEXC first at one basis point and second at five and ten, without publishing the names or placings of the other four venues. Bitget's two self-published studies place it first at 5, 10 and 50 basis points, but one anonymises its comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C while the other's 36-contract sample contains no MEXC. What can be confirmed is that each ranks first at different bands in different samples.

 

 

Orders around $10,000 meet no material difference at either venue, since TokenInsight found all five sampled venues slipping under 0.02% across all five instruments, leaving fees and the spread near the touch to set the cost. Orders around $100,000 can reference MEXC's lowest median and P90 slippage on SPCX, SOXL and SK Hynix, though that result covers three of the five instruments tested. Orders above $500,000 have no like-for-like data covering both venues, so direct measurement is advisable.

 

 

Its data carries specific figures and a stated method, with two qualifications worth noting. The research was published by Bitget rather than an independent benchmarking firm, a point the third-party page republishing it states explicitly. The 32-contract version on its academy page anonymises comparison venues as Exchange A, B and C without publishing a sample list, while the 36-contract version samples Bitget, Binance, Hyperliquid, OKX and Bybit, with MEXC absent. Those first-place results therefore hold within their own samples without constituting a comparison against MEXC.

 

 

On the latest available data, Bitget. It reached 376 contracts after adding Danaher and AT&T on October 23, 2026, while MEXC's publicly citable 310 is a July 29 snapshot, nearly three months earlier and not directly subtractable. Bitget grew from 304 to 376 between September 1 and October 23. Note also that the two venues may not count the same way, since including ETFs, leveraged ETFs and non-US listings materially affects totals.

 

 

Bitget discloses more. Its official page states that stock perpetuals follow its standard futures schedule at 0.02% maker and 0.06% taker. MEXC publishes no stock-perpetual-specific schedule, stating only "from 0.00%" on its page. One easily misread item: Bitget did cut stock perpetual maker fees to zero and taker fees to as low as 0.0065%, but that promotion ran February 10 to April 30, 2026 and has ended. Actual rates should be taken from each venue's official fee page on the day.

 

 

Both advertise it, with differing availability. MEXC's official tutorial cites up to 200x on stock futures depending on contract, while TokenInsight describes it as the only venue in its sample consistently supporting meaningful size at 100x. Bitget says selected stock perpetuals support up to 100x without publishing a count, and a third-party query dated September 1 found 260 of its contracts at 20x with only 15 at 100x. The binding constraint is the position limit at that leverage, confirmable in the risk limit table on each contract page.

 

 

Compare the best bid and ask spread and the combined size in the first five levels for the same instrument on both venues at the same moment, then use the depth chart to find the price deviation corresponding to your order size, which is your expected slippage. Next check the risk limit table on the contract detail page to confirm your intended size is permitted at your target leverage. The most reliable method is a live test: several small market orders on each venue, recording fill price against the quote at submission and taking the median.

 

 

Because book thickness varies with the session. Block Scholes research covering a single venue found a $500,000 SPY-USDT market buy slipping roughly 46.07 basis points shortly after the US open and roughly 24.90 basis points about an hour later, with a $100,000 order corresponding to 14.88 and 10.66 basis points. That research also recorded weekend volume declines of roughly 88% for Nvidia, 87% for QQQ and 67% for SPY. For large orders, timing can matter more than the difference between venues.

 

 

The information above is provided for general market and product information only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, legal advice, tax advice or a recommendation to trade, nor does it constitute an endorsement of any venue. Derivatives are leveraged instruments where price movement can produce losses exceeding the initial outlay, and high leverage materially amplifies that risk. The order book depth, slippage, instrument count, leverage and fee data cited here come from third-party research, venue announcements or official pages publicly available at the time of publication, with each item's source, sample composition, measurement band and data window noted in the text and tables; some data is roughly three months old and actual conditions may have changed. Among the research cited, some was published by an exchange itself rather than an independent benchmarking firm, and that character is marked item by item; some of those studies anonymise their sampled venues or do not include the other venue compared here, so they do not constitute a direct comparison between the two, and items marked unnamed or unconfirmed reflect missing information rather than a ranking result, with no assumption made about the identity of unnamed venues. Studies differ in sample size, instrument composition and measurement band, so their aggregate depth figures cannot be subtracted or converted for comparison. Instrument counts use inconsistent methodologies across venues and snapshots from different dates are not comparable. Promotional fee rates carry expiry dates, with known start and end dates noted, and actual rates should be taken from each venue's official fee page on the day. Trading sessions, leverage tiers and position limits are set by each venue and subject to change at any time, so contract rules for the relevant instrument should be verified before opening a position. Readers should conduct their own research and verify each venue's official information before making any decision, judging against their own financial circumstances, investment objectives and risk tolerance, and consulting a qualified professional where appropriate. The MEXC Crypto Pulse team accepts no liability for any direct or indirect loss arising from the use of this information.

 

 

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.