Dexly
Follow-a-wallet products and scored baskets both start from public on-chain history, which is the honest advantage of doing this on-chain at all: the record is checkable. They diverge on what happens after the record is read — whether you are handed a list to choose from, or a maintained allocation with rules for what happens when a leader stops working.
In short
Dexly is best understood as a wallet-following copy product: you pick the wallets, and your result depends on that selection and on when you change it. HyperMirror is Hyperliquid-only and score-driven — up to 10 leaders selected and weighted by a composite score into a sticky basket, each isolated in its own sub-account, with emergency removal and soft-issue-strike replacement handled procedurally, funded from your own account under a trade-only agent approval.
| Dimension | HyperMirror | Dexly |
|---|---|---|
| Primary venue | Hyperliquid only | Confirm which chains and venues it supports; multi-venue coverage is a common differentiator |
| Custody model | Non-custodial; funds stay in your own Hyperliquid account | Confirm whether funds remain in your own account or are deposited to the product |
| Permission model | Trade-only agent approval plus a separate builder-fee approval | Confirm the exact scope of the approval or signature requested |
| Can the operator withdraw your funds? | No — withdrawals and transfers stay wallet-only | Unknown from public material — verify before approving |
| What you copy | A curated basket of up to 10 scored elite Hyperliquid traders | Wallets you select from its discovery surface |
| Portfolio construction | Score-weighted allocation; 1 leader in Starter mode, up to 10 in Full mode | Manual: you choose the wallets and the allocation |
| Position isolation / netting | One isolated sub-account per leader; no netting between leaders | Typically one account per venue, so followed wallets net together |
| Leader replacement policy | Sticky basket: immediate removal on an emergency, otherwise 3 strike-days of documented soft issues | Not documented as a fixed rule set — rotation is left to the user or to the provider's discretion |
| Fee model | 0.1% builder fee on mirrored notional volume; no profit share | Check the provider's current pricing model directly |
| Transparency | On-chain: every fill sits under your own address | On-chain positions are inspectable where the design is non-custodial |
| Ops burden | Hosted autopilot; nothing to run or host yourself | You handle discovery, sizing, monitoring and rotation |
| Best for | Someone who wants diversified Hyperliquid exposure without giving up custody | Users who want to choose wallets themselves, possibly across venues |
HyperMirror fits when you want a maintained Hyperliquid basket with isolation, and no selection or monitoring work of your own.
Dexly may fit better when you want to choose specific wallets yourself, or you need coverage beyond Hyperliquid.
The phrase "on-chain" describes where trades settle, not who can move your money. Those are separate questions, and a product can be fully on-chain while still requiring a deposit into an address it controls. The check that resolves it is simple: does the flow ask you to send funds somewhere you do not own, and what exactly does the signature you are asked for authorise?
HyperMirror answers both in one sentence: nothing is deposited to us, and the only permissions involved are a trade-only agent approval and a builder-fee approval. Withdrawals, transfers and ownership changes remain signable only by your wallet, and you can revoke unilaterally.
Where a provider's public documentation does not state custody, permission scope or fee mechanics unambiguously, treat it as unknown rather than favourable, and verify it in that provider's own docs before approving anything.
HyperMirror charges 0.1% of mirrored notional volume via Hyperliquid's native builder-fee mechanism, capped by the rate you sign. No subscription, no profit share. Venue trading fees, spread, slippage and funding apply on top and are the same costs any copy system passes through.
Multi-venue copy products often price differently — subscription tiers, profit share, or margins embedded in routing. Embedded costs deserve particular attention because they do not appear as a line item; they show up as a worse fill. We do not quote another provider's numbers here, since they change and we cannot verify them for you.
Wallet-following puts discovery in front of you and leaves the hard parts unowned: how much to allocate to each wallet, whether a strong run is skill or a favourable regime, and when a wallet you researched has stopped being worth following. Copying several wallets into one account adds a subtler problem — Hyperliquid nets positions within an account, so opposing positions cancel and you lose both the exposure you intended and the ability to attribute results to anyone.
HyperMirror closes those gaps by construction. Scoring on realized PnL consistency, win rate, profit factor, position discipline and account survivability decides eligibility and weight; allocation is proportional to score; and every leader gets a dedicated sub-account so nothing nets across leaders. The tradeoff is real and worth stating: isolated sub-accounts fragment margin, which is less capital-efficient than a single netting account, and it raises the practical minimum account size.
The decision that determines most copy-trading outcomes is the exit from a leader who has stopped working, and it is the decision people are worst at. Selection tools leave it entirely with you, at the moment when the position is uncomfortable and the sunk research feels wasted.
HyperMirror makes it a rule. Soft issues such as thin activity, excess drawdown or weak ROI accrue at most one strike per day; three strike-days trigger replacement with the sub-account's positions closed; emergencies bypass strikes and trigger removal on detection. The system resists over-rotation on purpose — a higher score alone never forces a swap — because reacting to a single bad week generates cost and tracking error without adding information.
Diversification across correlated perp traders is partial, not protective. Several leaders can be long the same crowded trade, and a liquidation cascade does not care how the basket was weighted.
Choose HyperMirror if: your focus is Hyperliquid and you want depth there rather than breadth, you want isolation and score-weighted allocation handled for you, and you want a fee tied to mirrored volume with no subscription.
Choose Dexly if: you want to choose specific wallets yourself, you need coverage across more than one venue, or you prefer a discovery surface over a managed allocation.
Where HyperMirror is limited: Hyperliquid only; one leader until the $100k volume unlock; no hand-picking of leaders; and fragmented margin across sub-accounts, which raises the practical minimum size.
Where Dexly is limited: results depend on your own wallet selection and rotation discipline; netting inside one account distorts intended exposure when following several wallets; and custody, permission scope, venue coverage and fees all need verifying in the provider's own documentation.
HyperMirror's side of every row above follows one published rule set. The Elite basket is sticky: a leader stays mirrored until a rule removes them, and a higher-scoring wallet elsewhere never forces a swap. Emergencies — account value below roughly $1,000, or no fill for 96 hours or more combined with zero trades in 7 days — remove a leader immediately. Everything softer accrues at most one strike per wallet per UTC calendar day, with three strike-days triggering replacement and a clean day resetting the counter; drawdown for that test is measured on jump-adjusted equity so deposits and withdrawals are not read as trading losses, and ROI is measured from PnL. The full table is on How it works and in the documentation.
Structure changes which risks you carry, not whether you carry risk. Nothing on this page is a return estimate, a recommendation, or a claim about another provider's results — check any provider's own documentation before deciding.
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.
Methodology
Scoring and replacement are documented in full on How it works and in the Docs (Policy v3). In short: the Elite basket is sticky, emergencies remove a leader immediately, and soft issues accrue at most one strike per UTC day with three strike-days triggering replacement. Read how it works or the documentation for the full table.
Questions
No. It is Hyperliquid-only by design, which is what makes native agent approvals, builder fees and sub-account isolation available. If you need multi-venue coverage, a cross-venue product is the better fit.
We will not state that as fact. Check whether the flow requires a deposit to an address you do not control and what the signature you are asked for authorises. HyperMirror keeps funds in your own Hyperliquid account throughout.
Because Hyperliquid nets positions within an account. Two followed wallets on opposite sides of the same market cancel out, leaving you flat while paying both sides and with no way to attribute results.
Yes. The leaderboard shows the current basket with each leader's score and allocation weight, and every mirrored fill sits under your own address on-chain.
No. We do not publish other products' returns, and any published model performance of ours is an estimate from public trader history rather than a forecast of your result.
Keep reading
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
