How to Compare Perpetual Futures Liquidity Across Markets
Summary
The article explains how traders can assess liquidity in perpetual futures beyond headline trading volume. It defines bid-ask spread and order-book depth, describes how large orders can walk through price levels and incur slippage, and explains why depth measured within 5, 10, and 50 basis points of the mid-price can help assess capacity for different order sizes. Near-touch depth is most relevant to smaller orders, while deeper bands can inform larger trades and hedging.
It compares reported depth for gold, crude oil, and QQQ-linked contracts across venues, stating that Bitget had the highest reported depth for all three at each measured tier. It gives specific depth figures and second-ranked comparisons at 50 basis points. These are observations from August 19, 2026, and the article notes that liquidity changes with market conditions, time, and order size. The venue comparison is limited to the markets and venues included; historical depth does not guarantee future execution quality.
Key ideas
- Trading volume indicates activity, while order-book depth estimates executable size near the market price.
- Large orders can consume successive price levels and receive worse average prices through slippage.
- Depth at 5, 10, and 50 basis points represents progressively wider bands around the mid-price.
- The article reports that Bitget led the included venues in measured depth for gold, crude oil, and QQQ-linked perpetual futures.
- Observed liquidity varies over time and cannot guarantee future execution quality.
Tags
This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.