# Bitstamp API vs Hyperliquid (slim)

> Bitstamp and Hyperliquid score within a point of each other for exchange market data, 50.4 and 50 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/bitstamp-vs-hyperliquid.md (~4,900 tokens) · this version ~2,580 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/bitstamp-vs-hyperliquid.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/bitstamp-vs-hyperliquid
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-11-03
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Bitstamp API and Hyperliquid score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 50.4 (D) and 50 (D). Hyperliquid leads on agent ergonomics, payments & pricing and maintenance & community. Both do exchange market data.

- Bitstamp API: D 50.4, rank #1002 of 1349 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/bitstamp.min.md
- Hyperliquid: D 50, rank #1018 of 1349 · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/hyperliquid.min.md
- Bitstamp API, good for An agent that needs a long-running regulated spot venue in the EU, UK and US with a sandbox and per-endpoint key permissions, and can do its own signing. Ahead on Reliability, 63 against 40; Schema & documentation, 51 against 42; Transparency & trust, 53 against 26.
- Hyperliquid, good 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 Agent ergonomics, 70 against 58; Payments & pricing, 55 against 20; Maintenance & community, 39 against 28.

| Category | Bitstamp API | Hyperliquid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability (16%) | 63 | 40 |
| Performance (10%) | pending | pending |
| Schema & documentation (13%) | 51 | 42 |
| Agent ergonomics (13%) | 58 | 70 |
| Security & auth (14%) | 60 | 64 |
| Payments & pricing (10%) | 20 | 55 |
| Task success (10%) | pending | pending |
| Maintenance & community (7%) | 28 | 39 |
| Transparency & trust (7%) | 53 | 26 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Bitstamp API | Hyperliquid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | Bitstamp Ltd. | Hyperliquid Labs |
| Auth | API key | OAuth or key |
| Licence | Proprietary hosted API under Bitstamp's terms of use, which our reader couldn't load | 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 | none | 0 |
| llms.txt | no | yes |
| Last release | 2026-08-28 | 2026-06-04 |
| Privacy policy last updated | couldn't be read | no document linked |
| Popularity | none | 1.9k stars, 167k PyPI/wk |

Why the edge:
- Payments & pricing, Hyperliquid +35: Bitstamp API 20 (No machine payment protocol (0). The fee schedule page loaded empty, the API's fee endpoints need a key, and no rate could be read, so fees are scored as not published (0, unchecked). The API is free, public endpoints need no key and the sandbox needs no money (20). A person must sign up in a browser with identity checks and mint the key (0). 0 + 0 + 20 + 0 = 20.); 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.)
- Transparency & trust, Bitstamp API +27: Bitstamp API 53 (The editorial half. A closed service whose terms of use loaded empty for our reader, so the licence and clauses are unknown (8 of 30). The privacy policy loaded empty, so retention and data handling are unchecked (0 of 30). A 410.001 code marks deprecated endpoints and the changelog records replacements such as `trading-pairs-info` by `markets`, with no notice period stated (8 of 20). Subprocessors and data locations are in the unread privacy policy (0). 8 + 0 + 8 + 0 = 16.); 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.)
- Reliability, Bitstamp API +23: Bitstamp API 63 (Read with the hosted lines on the HTTP API v2 at www.bitstamp.net/api/v2/. status.bitstamp.net is a Statuspage site with component history (20). Its feed for 5 August to 3 November 2026 has 17 entries, among them withdrawals failing on 14 networks for about 3 hours on 21 August, database maintenance with login failures and intermittent trading interruptions for about 1 hour 44 minutes on 23 September, a 39-minute halt of all markets on 5 August, and delistings and single-asset suspensions. One major (10). Rate limits with numbers, 400 a second and 10,000 per 10 minutes (15). Limit errors are named (400.002, 400.067, 400.068) but there is no Retry-After or backoff guidance, duplicate client order ids are allowed, and the only retry guidance is to check the order after a 500.016 timeout (8 of 15). No SLA found (0). Generally available (10). 20 + 10 + 15 + 8 + 0 + 10 = 63.); Hyperliquid 40 (Read with the hosted lines on the REST API at api.hyperliquid.xyz, the surface an agent calls; the chain behind it is noted under details. No status page found in the docs, on hyperliquid.xyz or at status.hyperliquid.xyz, which did not resolve (0). No readable history (5). Rate limits documented with numbers per IP, per address and per WebSocket connection (15). When limited, an address gets one request every 10 seconds; no 429 shape or Retry-After is documented, but `cloid`, per-signer nonces, `expiresAfter` and `noop` make retries safe (10 of 15). No SLA (0). Mainnet is generally available (10). 0 + 5 + 15 + 10 + 0 + 10 = 40.)
- Agent ergonomics, Hyperliquid +12: Bitstamp API 58 (Graded on the REST API. Order book grouping and transaction time windows size responses, but there is no field selection and no MCP surface (15 of 25). Offset, limit, since and sort on transaction history, `until_id` windows on order-data replay (14 of 20). `response_code` and `response_explanation` name the failure, such as 400.009 insufficient balance, 403.004 trading blocked and 500.025 insufficient liquidity (16 of 20). No idempotency, since `client_order_id` duplicates are allowed since November 2023 and the docs say only to check the order id after a timeout; the kill switch limits damage (8 of 20). Few required parameters, but no official SDK in any language (5 of 15). 15 + 14 + 16 + 8 + 5 = 58.); 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.)
- Maintenance & community, Hyperliquid +11: Bitstamp API 28 (Read as a closed service. The last dated API change is 28 August 2026, 67 days before the check (20). Only one dated entry in the last 90 days, after 1 July and 12 June (0). No public repository or issue tracker, support pages did not load and support.bitstamp.net did not resolve; a changelog exists (8 of 25). No official SDKs and no MCP registry presence of Bitstamp's own (0). No package to assess (0). 20 + 0 + 8 + 0 + 0 = 28.); 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.)
- Schema & documentation, Bitstamp API +9: Bitstamp API 51 (No OpenAPI or other machine-readable contract was found on the API page or elsewhere (0). No llms.txt or Markdown docs (0). The single documentation page describes each endpoint's purpose and parameters, with notes such as the 10-second cache on open orders and the Travel Rule fields, but not when to use one endpoint over another (14 of 20). Parameters are typed with enumerations (margin mode CROSS or ISOLATED, margin multiplier 1 to 25, order types) and required fields marked (11 of 15). Signing examples in Python, Java and C++, and error families with numbered codes and explanations (13 of 15). Version v2 in the path and header, a dated changelog from 7 April 2023 to 28 August 2026, and a 410.001 code for deprecated endpoints, with no stated notice period (13 of 15). 0 + 0 + 14 + 11 + 13 + 13 = 51.); 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.)