Choosing a Hyperliquid trading bot.
Start with how you want to build and run a strategy. DXAP takes plain-language instructions. Hummingbot gives you an execution framework. Condor adds an AI interface to that framework. Freqtrade is for writing and testing strategies in Python.
Published by DXAP, a product of DX Research Group. We build one of the products below. Documentation checked September 6, 2026; this is a feature comparison, not a returns ranking.
Four ways to trade on Hyperliquid
These products document Hyperliquid support. Read the account and permission requirements for the version you deploy; they determine what the software can do with your funds.
| Product | Strategy and execution | Account control | Software cost | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DXAP (this site) | Describe a strategy; an AI agent proposes actions, checked against your limits. Hyperliquid perps. | Your Hyperliquid account. A revocable agent wallet can trade but cannot withdraw. | 2.5 bps (0.025%) on volume traded by your agent. No subscription or separate model charge. | Alpha access requires a referral code; the waitlist is for requesting access. $10 minimum per agent; no spot or second venue. |
| Hummingbot client | Configure strategies or write scripts. Hyperliquid spot and perpetual connectors. | Self-hosted credentials; Hyperliquid API wallet support is documented. | Open-source software. Its Hyperliquid connector uses a 0 bps builder code; infrastructure is yours. | You operate the bot and maintain its strategy, configuration and credentials. |
| Condor | AI interface to the Hummingbot stack for research, strategy development and execution. | Hyperliquid connection uses an approved trade-only agent wallet. | A 1 bps builder fee on Hyperliquid fills, per Hummingbot’s connector documentation. Check deployment and model costs separately. | You still need to configure and operate the underlying stack. |
| Freqtrade | Python strategies, backtesting and dry runs. Hyperliquid spot and futures support. | Self-hosted. Its docs recommend a separate API wallet with no withdrawal rights. | Free, open-source software; you supply the infrastructure. | Assumes control of the trading account. Its docs advise against manual trading on the same account. |
All four use exchange infrastructure. Hyperliquid trading fees apply, and perpetual positions may pay or receive funding. Software and builder fees are additional costs; check the venue fee schedule.
When does DXAP fit?
DXAP fits someone who wants to direct an agent in plain language and inspect its decisions. You approve the agent and its limits before it runs. Every proposed action passes through the policy engine, and the agent’s debrief records what it did, including turns when it does not trade.
Your balance stays in your Hyperliquid account. You can revoke the agent wallet on Hyperliquid. Revoking access prevents further use of that permission; it does not close existing positions.
DXAP charges $0.25 for $1,000 of executed volume. There is no DXAP charge on top of its 2.5 bps fee. The product is in alpha, and its controls do not establish that a strategy will be profitable. Start with the quickstart and product facts.
When does a framework fit?
Choose Hummingbot when you want to configure or build an execution strategy and run it yourself. Condor is worth evaluating if you want an AI interface to that same stack. Hummingbot documents different builder fees for its client and Condor: 0 bps and 1 bps respectively.
Freqtrade fits a Python workflow with backtesting and dry runs. Its Hyperliquid integration has concrete constraints: the available candle history is limited, and the bot assumes it owns the account’s trading activity. Read its exchange-specific notes before using it alongside another bot or manual trades.
For other venues and hosted tools, see the category comparison, AI trading agent shortlist, or Robinhood agentic trading alternatives.
What would count as performance evidence?
A connector, a backtest and trading volume answer different questions. To compare returns, you would need matched periods and account-level results after fees, funding and execution costs. We have not run that comparison across these products.
DXAP’s live record reports activity. DXRG’s Terminal Pro study covered 3,505 user-funded agents over 21 days on a separate product and venue. It explains the research behind DXAP; it is not DXAP performance evidence. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
How we compared them
We checked the linked product and connector documentation for venue support, strategy interface, account permissions, charges and operating constraints. Entries are grouped by workflow. We did not test competitors’ execution, score returns or verify every configuration. Nobody paid to be listed.
DXAP is in alpha. We ship changes by the day — expect things to move.