Comparisons
There is more than one way to have someone else's decisions expressed in your account. Each one trades a different thing away — custody, diversification, transparency or control. These pages describe the structural differences without inventing numbers about anyone.
In short
The main options are: copying a single leader 1:1, depositing into a custodial copy-trading service, allocating to a vault, handing an API key to a bot, mirroring trades manually, or mirroring a score-weighted basket through a non-custodial agent. They differ mainly in who holds the funds, how many independent edges you hold, and whether positions can net against each other.
Marketing language differs far more than mechanics do. When you strip it back, four structural questions decide what a system can and cannot do for you.
We describe categories and mechanisms, not competitor performance. We do not publish other products' returns, ratings or fees as facts, because those change and we cannot verify them for you — check any provider's own documentation before deciding.
Each page also states when the alternative is genuinely the better choice. There are cases where a single leader, a vault or a manual approach fits a person better than a diversified basket does.
Structure changes which risks you carry, not whether you carry risk. Every option here places leveraged perpetual-futures positions that can lose money, and diversification reduces single-leader concentration without protecting against a correlated market move.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Perpetual futures are leveraged instruments and carry a substantial risk of loss, including the loss of your entire position.
| Approach | Who holds the funds | Independent edges | Position netting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single-leader copy bot | You (non-custodial) or operator, varies | 1 | N/A |
| Custodial exchange copy trading | Exchange or operator | 1 per followed trader | Usually netted in one account |
| Hyperliquid vault | Vault contract | 1 vault strategy | Pooled |
| API-key bot | You, but key scope decides | Depends on bot | Usually netted |
| Manual mirroring | You | 1–2 realistically | Netted in your account |
| HyperMirror | You, always | Up to 10 scored leaders | Isolated per leader |
Comparison
The differences that change your risk profile, not the feature-list ones.
| Dimension | Basic copy tools | HyperMirror |
|---|---|---|
| Funds location | Often the operator's account or a pooled vault. | Your own Hyperliquid account and sub-accounts. |
| Number of edges | Usually one leader or one strategy. | Up to 10 scored leaders in Full mode. |
| Position netting | Opposing positions cancel in a single account. | Each leader isolated in its own sub-account. |
| Revenue model | Profit share, subscription or spread markup. | 0.1% builder fee on mirrored volume only. |
In this cluster
Structural comparisons between the ways to automate Hyperliquid trading — mechanisms, not marketing claims.
Questions
No. We compare mechanisms and structures only. Any performance claim about another product should come from that product's own verifiable data.
No. If you have genuine conviction in one specific trader and accept full concentration risk, single-leader copying expresses that view more directly.
It depends on your turnover. Volume-based fees favour lower-frequency mirroring; profit-share models cost nothing in losing periods but can be expensive in strong ones. Compare against your own expected activity.
Score-weighted allocation across up to 10 elite Hyperliquid traders, each isolated in its own sub-account. Your funds never leave your account.
Non-custodial · Agent cannot withdraw · Cancel delegation anytime
