An article comparing fees has sorted out the spot and perpetual contract charging standards of 8 major crypto exchanges for the year 2026. The article argues that, in addition to the basic maker and taker fees, whether it is easy to reach the first discount tier is what truly determines the user's actual transaction costs.
First, let's look at the differences in basic rates.
The article states that the perpetual contract fees for Coinbase are relatively low, with maker at 0% and taker at 0.03%. However, for Advanced Trade, the lowest-level spot fee can reach up to 0.60%. This means that the cost of trading perpetual contracts is relatively low, but the cost of buying ordinary spot is on the higher side.
The spot base fee for Binance is 0.10%, while for some contract products it is maker 0.02% and taker 0.05%. If BNB is used to pay for contract fees, an additional discount can be obtained. The contract fee rate for OKX is close to that of Binance, and the spot maker fee rate is slightly lower, with discounts available based on OKB.
The base contract fee rate for Bybit is maker 0.02%, and for taker it is 0.055%. The regular contract fee rates for BloFin, Bitget, and KuCoin are mostly around maker 0.02% and taker 0.06%. The article also mentions that the base contract fee rate for MEXC is relatively low, at maker 0%, and for taker it is 0.02%.
The first discount tier is even more crucial.
The article points out that many rate comparisons only display nominal prices, but what truly affects users' costs is the first available discount tier. Exchanges usually offer fee reduction conditions in two ways: based on the platform's asset balance or on 30-day rolling trading volume.
In terms of asset thresholds, BloFin and OKX offer relatively easy-to-achieve pathways. The article states that both platforms allow account assets to reach $50,000 before unlocking lower contract fees. In contrast, Bybit requires assets of $100,000 for a similar tier, setting a higher threshold.
While Binance, KuCoin, and Coinbase offer more discounts that depend on trading volume or the holding of platform coins. The article argues that for users who already have a certain amount of funds in their accounts but have low monthly trading volumes, the asset-threshold-based discounts are more likely to be actually utilized, rather than remaining just on the fee schedule.
Different platforms have different focuses.
The article lists MEXC as one of the platforms with the lowest nominal fees, due to its lower base contract fees and the fact that it does not require additional tokens or higher entry barriers. For users who already have a larger account balance, the article suggests that the first discount offered by BloFin is more easily accessible, so the actual fee rate may be better than that of some competitors which have nominally lower fees but are more difficult to upgrade to.
From the perspective of large-scale trading and liquidity, the article places more emphasis on Binance. The reason is that its contract taker has a lower fee rate, and at the same time, it has a deeper order book, which may result in smaller deviations from the transaction price.
The article also reminds that the fees of maker and taker are not the total costs. The funding fees for perpetual contracts, as well as the fees for recharging and withdrawing funds, and the on-chain network fees, will also affect the final transaction expenses.
