Volume & Liquidity

On 24h volume, Native leads with $44.6M versus Ekubo’s $10.3M. However, volume without commensurate liquidity can be fragile: it may reflect routed flow, incentivized trading, or thinner books that can’t sustain larger orders without material price impact.

On liquidity/TVL, Ekubo is in a different league: $41.2M TVL compared with Native’s $21K. That gap implies Ekubo can generally support larger trade sizes with lower slippage and more resilient pricing, while Native’s very low TVL suggests limited capacity for organic depth across its 10 pairs.

Breadth also reinforces this: Ekubo lists 90 trading pairs and 22 coins, while Native has 10 pairs and 9 coins. For traders, Ekubo’s combination of deeper TVL and wider markets typically translates into better execution consistency, even if its headline 24h volume is lower.

Fee Structure & Costs

Based on the provided metrics, Ekubo generated $8K in 24h fees (and $608 revenue), while Native shows $0 fees and $0 revenue. Interpreted literally, Native offers a lower-fee trading environment at the protocol level, whereas Ekubo’s usage results in measurable fee extraction.

That said, “$0 fees” can also indicate missing/unsupported fee reporting, non-standard fee routing, or off-protocol fee capture. By contrast, Ekubo’s fee and revenue numbers suggest a more conventional, transparent DEX fee model.

On gas costs, Ekubo operates on Starknet (typically lower L2 transaction costs than Ethereum L1) with an Ethereum presence, while Native spans multiple chains where costs vary widely (e.g., BSC/Polygon often cheaper, Ethereum potentially expensive). Without explicit maker/taker schedules, the cleanest data-driven conclusion is that Native appears cheaper on fees as reported.

Multi-chain & Ecosystem

Native has materially broader chain coverage: Binance, Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Mantle, ZetaChain, Avalanche, Manta, zkLink—a 9-chain footprint. Ekubo is focused on Starknet with an Ethereum presence (2 chains), reflecting a tighter ecosystem scope.

Broader chain reach generally increases potential integrations (wallets, bridges, aggregators), distribution for token launches, and access to diverse user bases. It can also reduce single-ecosystem risk by allowing liquidity programs and communities to form where demand is strongest.

Ekubo’s narrower focus can be a strength for depth and product specialization within Starknet, but on “ecosystem breadth” as defined by chain coverage, Native clearly dominates.

User Recommendations

Choose Ekubo (Starknet) if you want a more traditional DEX trading experience with meaningful liquidity and market breadth. Its high TVL, 90 pairs, and concentrated-liquidity design are better suited to regular swapping, more reliable execution, and LP strategies that depend on real depth.

Ekubo is also a better fit for users already active on Starknet (or comfortable bridging) who value L2 economics and are looking for Starknet-native opportunities. The trade-off is ecosystem familiarity: onboarding may involve Starknet wallets/bridges and the usual L2 learning curve.

Choose Native if your primary need is multi-chain access and you’re experimenting with liquidity creation across networks. However, given the extremely low $21K TVL and only 10 pairs, it may feel less “plug-and-play” for traders who need dependable depth; it’s more naturally positioned for niche deployments or early-stage liquidity setups.

Trends & Innovation

Ekubo’s architecture—concentrated liquidity, a singleton design, and extensions—signals a clear product thesis aimed at capital efficiency and modular upgrades. In practice, this is the direction of “next-gen AMMs”: better LP tooling, tighter spreads when liquidity is active, and extensibility for new pool behaviors.

Near-term, Ekubo’s trends show softness: TVL trend -6.7% and volume trend -24.8% versus 7d averages (fees also -11.7%). That indicates recent cooling, but it’s occurring from a base of meaningful scale ($40M+ TVL), which often provides a stronger foundation for iterating on UX, incentives, and integrations.

Native’s lack of trend data and its current footprint (very low TVL) make it harder to underwrite momentum. While the “on-chain platform to build token liquidity” narrative can be compelling, the observable on-chain liquidity base is not yet demonstrating strong adoption signals relative to Ekubo’s established Starknet position.