Head to head · Exchange market data · October 2026 research run
Bitget vs Hyperliquid
Bitget scores 53.9 (D) on agent readiness against Hyperliquid's 50 (D), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Hyperliquid leads on payments & pricing. Both do exchange market data.
Best crypto exchange APIs and MCP servers for AI agents · All 210 exchanges comparisons
Which one, for what
Bitget D
Best for An agent trading spot, futures and earn products in a person's Bitget account outside the prohibited list, with the smallest default MCP surface of the exchanges graded and a paper-trading switch.
Ahead on
- Schema & documentation, 74 against 42
- Agent ergonomics, 83 against 70
- Maintenance & community, 78 against 39
- Transparency & trust, 65 against 26
Also in its favour
- Runs on your own machine
Watch for
Hot and warm wallets lost about 388 million dollars on 24 September 2026 to forged withdrawal commands, and withdrawals were paused until 2 October
Best for An agent trading perpetuals or spot on chain from its own wallet with no account, or acting for a master account through an approved API wallet.
Ahead on
- Payments & pricing, 55 against 40
Also in its favour
- No incidents deducted, where Bitget loses 8 points for them
Watch for
No official MCP server; the 23 registry entries are all third parties, several selling data by x402
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Maintenance & community Bitget +39
Bitget 78
Read as a hosted service with an open-source toolkit. The UTA changelog's latest launched entry is 30 October 2026 and a preview entry 3 November; the MCP package shipped 3.3.1 on 20 September and agent-skill was pushed 30 October (30). 58 dated changelog entries since 5 August 2026 and six MCP versions since June (20). Issue trackers on the Bitget-AI repositories (11 open on agent_hub) and a support centre; replies were not checked (10 of 25). In the official MCP registry under io.github.Bitget-AI, a GitHub namespace, with official SDKs in five languages (10 of 15). CI workflow with coverage, npm provenance attestations, two runtime dependencies, no install scripts (8 of 10). 78.
Hyperliquid 39
Read as a closed hosted service with open SDKs. The API has no dated changelog, so the last dated change is the Python SDK's 0.24.0 on 4 June 2026, 152 days before this check; the node repository was pushed on 10 August 2026 and the docs describe newer actions (HIP-4 outcome markets, borrow and lend) without dates. Judgement call (10 of 30). No three dated releases in 90 days (0). Support through Discord and the docs' FAQ, 112 open issues on the SDK whose replies couldn't be read (8 of 25). Official Python and Rust SDKs, the Rust one last pushed 21 October 2025; no MCP registry entry (15). CI on Python 3.9 and 3.13 with Poetry, Dependabot badge, a lock file (6 of 10). Total 39.
Transparency & trust Bitget +39
Bitget 65
The editorial half. A closed hosted service with clear terms naming BTG Technology Holdings Limited; the toolkit is MIT (15 of 30). The privacy notice names the controller and EEA representative, gives 7-year and up to 10-year retention for compliance and litigation, and names recipients by category only (18 of 30). Deprecations and parameter changes carry effective dates (delta mode deprecated 27 August, symbol and category required from 30 September, snapshot changes with demo and live dates) but no written policy (15 of 20). Recipients by category, transfers under Seychelles law with no locations or provider names (5 of 20). 53.
Hyperliquid 26
The editorial half. The SDKs are MIT and the node repository Apache-2.0 with a Dockerfile around a binary; the API servers and front end are closed and the terms were unreadable (12 of 30). No privacy policy read and nothing in the docs on data handling (0 of 30). Deprecated actions are marked in the docs without dates or a policy (8 of 20). No subprocessors or data locations (0 of 20). Total 20.
Schema & documentation Bitget +32
Bitget 74
The agent SDK ships openapi.yaml with 109 typed UTA v3 operations from which the tools are generated, a machine-readable contract from the vendor's own organisation though not on the docs site (20 of 25). llms.txt in the SDK and MCP repositories; the docs site has none (6 of 10). Intent tools with a discover tool that explains each verb, action and its risk level, and the server's initialize instructions state surface, modules and read-only posture (15 of 20). Typed inputs with enums and required fields from the OpenAPI source (12 of 15). Examples in the quick start and READMEs, a REST error code page in the legacy docs that we did not read in full (9 of 15). Changelog by day with preview notices and effective dates (12 of 15). 74.
Hyperliquid 42
No OpenAPI or other machine-readable contract; request and response shapes are tables and JSON examples in the docs (0 of 25). llms.txt and a Markdown twin of every page by appending .md (10). Each info type and exchange action has a short description of what it does, and the signing page lists common mistakes, but little says when to use one call over another (12 of 20). Fields are one-letter keys (a, b, p, s, r, t, c) with numbers as strings, enums such as tif Alo, Ioc or Gtc, and required fields marked in tables (9 of 15). An example for every call and a list of order and cancel error strings, with no HTTP error table (11 of 15). No API version, no changelog and no dated release notes; deprecated actions such as userDexAbstraction are marked in place (0 of 15). Total 42.
Payments & pricing Hyperliquid +15
Bitget 40
No machine payment protocol (0). Base spot and futures rates are stated in a help article without login, the tier table draws by script (20). Market data needs no key, demo trading costs nothing and no card is asked for at sign-up (20). A person registers, verifies identity and mints the key in a browser (0). 40.
Hyperliquid 55
No machine payment protocol (0). Fees published per tier without login (20). No card anywhere; public info endpoints are free and the testnet faucet gives 1,000 mock USDC, though only to an address that has deposited on mainnet (15 of 20). No signup; an agent with a funded EVM wallet deposits USDC on a bridged chain and trades, subject to the unread terms (20). Total 55.
Agent ergonomics Bitget +13
Bitget 83
Read for the API with the MCP server as the agent route. 14 compact tools by default, module filters, a full surface on request and progressive discovery (25). Cursor pagination on CFD order history since 15 October 2026 and limit parameters on lists (15 of 20). Uniform ok or error result shape from the SDK with typed error classes and compact JSON in the text channel (13 of 20). clientOid on orders, dryRun: true on every write, confirm: true gating cancelAll and withdraw, annotations derived from risk level including readOnlyHint, destructiveHint and idempotentHint (18 of 20). Few required fields, official SDKs in five languages plus the TypeScript agent SDK and a CLI (12 of 15). 83.
Hyperliquid 70
An API, read for response sizing. Time-range calls return at most 500 blocks of data, fills and historical orders cap at 2,000 items, candles at 5,000, l2Book at 20 levels a side (18 of 25). Cursor-by-timestamp pagination on fills and funding, filtering by coin or dex, no field selection (14 of 20). Order errors are documented strings per order, one batch-level error rejects a batch, and orderStatus answers unknownOid; no codes and no rate-limit error shape (12 of 20). cloid, per-signer nonces within a time window, expiresAfter, noop to burn a nonce and scheduleCancel as a dead man's switch (18 of 20). Few required fields, but signing needs msgpack field order, two EIP-712 schemes and lowercase addresses, and the official SDKs are Python (Alpha) and Rust only (8 of 15). Total 70.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Bitget | Hyperliquid | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 16%20 | 40 | 40 | even |
| Performance | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13%16.2 | 74 | 42 | Bitget +32 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13%16.2 | 83 | 70 | Bitget +13 |
| Security & auth | 14%17.5 | 62 | 64 | Hyperliquid +2 |
| Payments & pricing | 10%12.5 | 40 | 55 | Hyperliquid +15 |
| Task success | 10%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7%8.8 | 78 | 39 | Bitget +39 |
| Transparency & trust | 7%8.8 | 65 | 26 | Bitget +39 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | -8 | 0 | |
| Total | D 53.9/100 | D 50/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Bitget | Hyperliquid |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | BTG Technology Holdings Limited | Hyperliquid Labs |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | stdio | |
| Auth | API key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Pay per use | Pay per use |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | none | The exchange runs on the Hyperliquid chain (HyperCore), whose node is distributed as a binary under an Apache-2.0 repository; the Python and Rust SDKs are MIT. The API servers and front end are closed |
| Tools exposed | 14 | 0 |
| Read-only variant documented | yes | no |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| MCP registry | io.github.Bitget-AI/bitget-agent-mcp | not listed |
| Last release | 2026-10-30 | 2026-06-04 |
| Terms last updated | 2026-10-20 | couldn't be read |
| Privacy policy last updated | 2025-12-05 | no document linked |
| Customer content may train models | not found in the text | couldn't be read |
| Terms restrict automated access | yes | couldn't be read |
| Terms restrict benchmarking | not found in the text | couldn't be read |
| Terms or service can change without notice | yes | couldn't be read |
| Arbitration or class-action waiver | yes | couldn't be read |
| Popularity | 234 stars | 1.9k stars, 167k PyPI/wk |
Verdicts
Bitget
Bitget's official MCP server keeps the default surface to 14 intent tools with discovery, read-only and paper-trading switches, dry runs and a confirmation gate on withdrawals, over an API with demo trading. A 388 million dollar wallet breach in September 2026 paused withdrawals for eight days, and there is no status page, SLA or readable fee table.
Hyperliquid
Hyperliquid's API needs no signup or key, an approved API wallet can trade but not withdraw, fees and rate limits are published with numbers, and a testnet mirrors mainnet. There is no official MCP server, OpenAPI file, status page, changelog or readable terms, and signing uses two schemes the docs say to leave to an SDK.
Before you call either
Bitget
- Run
npx -y @bitget-ai/bitget-agent-mcp --read-onlyfor research and--paper-tradingwith a demo key before any live order; the two flags cannot be combined - Call discover({}) first, then the intent verbs; add
dryRun: trueto any write to preview it, and passconfirm: trueonly after the person has agreed to a withdraw or cancelAll - Send a unique clientOid of at most 64 characters on every order and reuse it on retry; orderId wins when both are sent
- Stay under 10 requests a second per endpoint on a new account and 6,000 a minute per IP; the SDK retries on 429, so do not add a second retry loop
- Bind the key to an IP and keep write permission off a research key; the docs read show no separate withdrawal scope
Hyperliquid
- Generate a fresh API wallet, approve it with
approveAgentwith a name and expiry, sign with it, and query with the master address, never the agent address - Use the Python SDK's
sign_l1_actionandsign_user_signed_action; mixing the two, field order in msgpack or an uppercase address gives "User or API Wallet ... does not exist" - Set a
cloidon every order and read the per-orderstatusesarray; one batch-level error rejects the whole batch - Budget address limits by volume (one action per 1 USDC traded after 10,000); batch orders to lower IP weight, and use WebSocket for data
- Arm
scheduleCancelbefore unattended trading so open orders are cancelled if the agent stops
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Bitget or Hyperliquid?
Bitget scores 53.9 (D) on agent readiness against Hyperliquid's 50 (D), and leads in 4 of 7 scored categories. Hyperliquid leads on payments & pricing.
Do Bitget and Hyperliquid need an API key?
Bitget needs an API key. Hyperliquid takes an API key or an OAuth sign-in.
Can an agent call Bitget and Hyperliquid without installing anything?
Bitget runs on your own machine, with no hosted endpoint listed. No hosted endpoint is listed for Hyperliquid.
Other comparisons with Bitget or Hyperliquid
- Bitfinex API vs Bitget
- Bitfinex API vs Hyperliquid
- Bitget vs Bithumb Open API
- Bitget vs Bitstamp API
- Bitget vs Bybit
- Bitget vs Coinbase Advanced Trade API
- Bitget vs Coinbase MCP server (Coinbase for Agents)
- Bitget vs Crypto.com Exchange API
- Bitget vs Deribit
- Bitget vs dYdX
- Bitget vs Gate
- Bitget vs Gemini Exchange API
- Bitget vs HTX trading API
- Bitget vs Kraken API
- Bitget vs KuCoin
- Bitget vs MEXC API
- Bitget vs OKX API
- Bitget vs Uniswap Trading API
- Bitget vs Upbit Open API
- Bithumb Open API vs Hyperliquid
- Bitstamp API vs Hyperliquid
- Bybit vs Hyperliquid
- Crypto.com Exchange API vs Hyperliquid
- Gate vs Hyperliquid
- Gemini Exchange API vs Hyperliquid
- HTX trading API vs Hyperliquid
- Hyperliquid vs Upbit Open API
- Binance API vs Bitget
- Binance API vs Hyperliquid
- Coinbase Advanced Trade API vs Hyperliquid
- Coinbase MCP server (Coinbase for Agents) vs Hyperliquid
- Hyperliquid vs Uniswap Trading API
- Deribit vs Hyperliquid
- dYdX vs Hyperliquid
- Hyperliquid vs Kraken API
- Hyperliquid vs KuCoin
- Hyperliquid vs MEXC API
- Hyperliquid vs OKX API
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/bitget-vs-hyperliquid.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/bitget.json·/api/v1/tools/hyperliquid.json - From a terminal
anchor compare bitget hyperliquid(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "bitget", "b": "hyperliquid"}at/mcp, no key