HyperMirror vs Mizar

Quick verdict

HyperMirror fits when you would rather receive a curated, maintained basket than evaluate a catalogue of listings.

Mizar may fit better when you enjoy evaluating strategies and want a wide selection with the freedom to switch.

Custody and security

Marketplace models generally keep custody with the exchange and connect through keys, which is structurally reasonable. The subtler exposure is informational: strategy statistics on a marketplace are reported by the platform, often on the creator's own terms, and the incentive to present a listing favourably is built into the model.

Hyperliquid removes the reporting layer for the parts that matter. Scoring is computed from public fills, and the mirroring itself produces public fills under your address. You can check the claim against the chain. The permission is a trade-only agent — no withdrawals, no transfers — plus a separate builder-fee approval with no trading rights.

• Scoring inputs are public on-chain history, not self-reported statistics.
• Trade-only agent permission, revocable from your wallet.
• Funds never leave your own Hyperliquid account.
• Basket membership and weights are visible on the leaderboard.

Fees and incentive alignment

Marketplaces commonly layer costs: a platform fee plus a per-strategy subscription or performance share. Each layer is defensible in isolation, and together they can make the true cost of a given allocation genuinely hard to compute in advance.

HyperMirror has one line item: 0.1% of mirrored notional volume through Hyperliquid's builder-fee mechanism. No performance fee, no per-leader charge, no subscription. Simplicity is the point, and the acknowledged weakness is that volume-based cost rises with turnover regardless of how the basket performs.

How copying and automation actually work

Choosing from a catalogue looks like diversification and often is not. Listings compete for attention with recent performance, which is the least stable property a strategy has, and users end up rotating toward whatever had a good month — buying the top of each strategy's cycle in sequence.

A scored basket is designed against that behaviour. Composite scores weight consistency, profit factor, position discipline and survivability, not a single hot month; allocation follows score rather than enthusiasm; and turnover is deliberately restrained so that a rough week does not trigger a reshuffle. Each leader stays isolated in a sub-account, keeping attribution clean and preventing cross-leader netting.

• No listings to evaluate and no subscription decisions to make.
• Up to 10 leaders in Full mode; 1 in Starter mode until $100k mirrored volume.
• Score-weighted sizing, isolated per-leader sub-accounts.
• Anti-over-rotation is an explicit design goal.

Risk controls and leader failure

On a marketplace, the discontinuation risk sits with you: a creator can stop maintaining a strategy, change its behaviour, or simply disappear, and noticing is your responsibility. So is deciding when a run of losses means the edge is gone rather than that the strategy is in a bad patch.

In a curated basket, those judgements are systematised. Soft issues — thin activity, excess drawdown, weak ROI — accrue at most one strike per day and replace a leader after three strike-days, closing that leader's sub-account positions; emergencies bypass strikes and remove a leader immediately. What remains unaddressed is correlation: ten leaders positioned similarly into the same market move will lose together.

Who should choose which

Choose HyperMirror if: you want curation rather than choice, you want on-chain verifiable selection inputs, and you want one fee you can compute in advance.

Choose Mizar if: you want breadth of strategy types and venues, you like evaluating and switching strategies, or you want exposure to non-copy strategy styles.

Limitations, on both sides

Where HyperMirror is limited: no catalogue, no strategy variety, no self-selection; Hyperliquid only; one leader below the $100k unlock; and margin fragmented across isolated sub-accounts.

Where Mizar is limited: selection burden and rotation behaviour work against most users; layered fees make total cost hard to predict; listing statistics are platform-reported rather than chain-verifiable; and strategies can be discontinued without warning.

Methodology, in one paragraph

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.

Risk statement

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.