If you trade futures and you’re choosing between BitGet and Bybit, you’re choosing between two of the three biggest derivatives exchanges in crypto. Both are good. They’re good at different things. And one of them got hacked for $1.4 billion in early 2025 — which is the kind of detail that should affect your decision and usually doesn’t make it into the cheerful comparison articles.
I’ve used both for years. Here’s the honest head-to-head. Some links are affiliate. Flagged when they appear.
Short answer: BitGet has the deeper copy trading network (~190k traders), broader bot suite, and slightly more futures pairs (660+ vs 400+). Bybit has marginally better spot liquidity on majors and a more polished UI. BitGet is the better pick for futures + copy trading; Bybit is the better pick for pure spot scalping on majors. My main: BitGet.
Open a BitGet account → (affiliate)
Key takeaways
- Both exchanges sit in the top 5 by derivatives volume on CoinGecko’s exchange rankings.
- Bybit was hacked in February 2025 for approximately $1.4 billion (the largest crypto exchange hack on record) — covered by Reuters, CoinDesk, and others. Customer funds were fully reimbursed within days from Bybit’s reserves.
- BitGet has no major hack history. Both publish Proof of Reserves.
- Futures fees are similar: BitGet at 0.02% / 0.06% maker/taker, Bybit at 0.02% / 0.055%.
- Maximum leverage: BitGet 125x on BTC/ETH, Bybit 100x. Higher cap doesn’t mean better — both are dangerous past 10x.
TL;DR comparison table
| BitGet | Bybit | |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2018 |
| HQ | Seychelles | Dubai (with subsidiaries) |
| Spot pairs | 800+ | 600+ |
| Futures pairs | 660+ | 400+ |
| Max leverage (BTC) | 125x | 100x |
| Spot fees (regular) | 0.10% / 0.10% | 0.10% / 0.10% |
| Futures fees | 0.02% / 0.06% | 0.02% / 0.055% |
| Copy trading | 190k+ traders | Smaller network |
| Native bots | Yes (broad suite) | Yes |
| Proof of Reserves | Monthly | Monthly |
| Major hack | None | Feb 2025 ($1.4B, recovered) |
| US available | No | No |
| Native token | BGB | (no equivalent — BIT discontinued) |
The full BitGet review goes deeper on the platform I use most. The best crypto exchanges post is the wider ranked list.
Spot trading head-to-head
Pair coverage
BitGet lists 800+ spot pairs. Bybit lists about 600+. Both cover every major you’d want and most mid-caps. For new listings, BitGet has tended to list slightly faster on smaller-cap tokens in the last year. Bybit catches up quickly on anything that gains real volume.
Liquidity on majors
Bybit’s order book on BTC/USDT and ETH/USDT spot is slightly deeper than BitGet’s at the top of the book. The spread is comparable. For most retail position sizes ($10k or less) the difference is invisible. If you’re moving size, Bybit has the edge on the very largest pairs.
Fees
Both start at 0.10% / 0.10% for spot. Both offer fee discounts for holding the native token or for volume-based VIP tiers. Bybit’s discount path is via VIP only (BIT was retired). BitGet’s discount is via BGB holdings + VIP — a regular user holding BGB pays effectively 0.08%.
UI
Bybit’s spot UI is cleaner. BitGet’s is denser, more functional. If you’re new and care about UI polish, Bybit feels nicer. If you’re a power user who wants every order type one click away, BitGet feels more productive.
Order types
Both offer limit, market, stop-limit, OCO, conditional, and trailing orders. BitGet adds a “post-only” specific option that helps with maker rebates. Bybit’s trailing implementation is slightly cleaner.
For BitGet specifically, the BitGet spot trading guide and BitGet order types posts cover the platform in detail.
Futures trading head-to-head (the main event)
This is where most people pick one or the other.
Contracts available
- BitGet: USDT-M perpetuals, USDC-M perpetuals, Coin-M perpetuals (BTC and ETH-margined). 660+ pairs across all three.
- Bybit: USDT perpetuals, USDC perpetuals (including USDC options), inverse perpetuals (Coin-M equivalent). About 400+ pairs.
If you want to short an obscure altcoin perp, BitGet has it. If you want USDC options, Bybit has them (BitGet does not list traditional options as broadly).
Maximum leverage
- BitGet: 125x on BTC, 125x on ETH, 50x on most mid-caps, 10–20x on new listings
- Bybit: 100x on BTC, 50x on ETH, 25x on most alts
This is technically a BitGet win, but high leverage is a tax on bad decisions. At 100x, a 1% move against you wipes the position. At 125x, 0.8% does it. Bitcoin moves more than 1% during the time it takes to make a cup of tea. If you’re using 100x+ regularly, your account longevity is measured in weeks, not years.
The BitGet leverage explained and BitGet futures USDT-M posts cover the responsible side of futures.
Fees
- BitGet: 0.02% maker / 0.06% taker (regular). VIP 3 drops to ~0.012% / 0.035%.
- Bybit: 0.02% maker / 0.055% taker (regular). VIP discounts available.
For a position-trader, the difference is rounding error. For a high-frequency strategy, Bybit’s slightly lower taker fee adds up over thousands of trades.
Funding rates
Both refresh every 8 hours. Funding rates are determined by the perpetual-to-spot premium, so the numbers track each other closely. Occasional divergences create arbitrage opportunities for systematic traders.
Insurance / liquidation engine
Both have insurance funds that absorb auto-deleveraging losses. Bybit’s insurance fund has historically been one of the largest in crypto. BitGet’s is smaller but well-capitalised. Auto-deleveraging is rare on majors on either exchange; more common on illiquid alt perps.
Verdict on futures
If you trade a wide range of alt perps including obscure ones — BitGet wins on pair coverage.
If you trade BTC and ETH perps high-frequency and you care about that 0.005% — Bybit wins marginally on fees.
If you trade USDC options — Bybit, full stop.
For most retail futures traders, the gap is small enough that the deciding factor will be copy trading or bots, not the futures engine itself.
Copy trading: BitGet vs Bybit
This is the clearest gap.
BitGet
- Approximately 190,000 listed elite traders
- 800,000+ followers across the platform
- Verifiable ROI history, win rates, max drawdown, AUM
- Filter by all of the above
- Multiple copy modes: fixed ratio, fixed amount, proportional
- Can copy spot and futures separately
The BitGet copy trading post goes deeper. The TL;DR: BitGet’s copy trading is the deepest in the industry by a clear margin. The filtering tools matter — you can filter for traders with under 30% max drawdown and 12+ months of history, which strips out the lucky-2-month leaderboard merchants.
Bybit
- Smaller pool of copy traders (low tens of thousands range)
- Functional, with the same basic filters
- Less granular control over copy parameters
- Limited spot copy trading
Bybit’s copy trading is fine. It’s just not as deep. Fewer traders means fewer good traders to filter for, which means it’s harder to find a strategy that fits your risk tolerance.
Why it matters
Copy trading depth compounds. More traders → more competition → better tools → more traders. BitGet has been winning this category for years now and the gap is widening.
If copy trading is the feature you care about most, BitGet is the easy pick.
Bots: comparison
Both exchanges have native bot suites. Strategy coverage:
| Bot type | BitGet | Bybit |
|---|---|---|
| Spot grid | Yes | Yes |
| Futures grid | Yes | Yes |
| DCA | Yes | Yes |
| Martingale | Yes (don’t use) | Yes (don’t use) |
| AI / trend-following | Yes | Limited |
| Bot copy trading | Yes | No |
| Bot strategy marketplace | Yes | Limited |
BitGet’s bot suite is broader and has a more developed marketplace where bot operators can publish strategies on a profit-share basis. Bybit’s bots cover the basics cleanly but the strategy depth is shallower.
If you’re going to run a spot grid on BTC/USDT specifically, the bot I actually use is the BitGet BTC/USDT spot bot. The crypto trading bots guide covers what works and what’s a scam.
Security: Proof of Reserves both, hack history
This is the section that should reshape any current Bybit user’s thinking.
Proof of Reserves
Both exchanges publish monthly Merkle tree Proof of Reserves. Any user can verify their own account is included in the snapshot. As of the most recent reports, both show reserves above 100% — meaning customer funds are fully backed and not lent out.
BitGet hack history
None. No major hack, no insolvency event, no withdrawal freeze. The BitGet review covers their security posture in more depth.
Bybit hack history
In February 2025, Bybit was hit by the largest crypto exchange hack ever recorded — approximately $1.4 billion in ETH stolen from a cold wallet during a routine transfer. The attack is widely attributed to the Lazarus Group (North Korean state actors). Reuters, CoinDesk, and The Block all covered it extensively.
The important context:
- Customer funds were fully reimbursed from Bybit’s reserves within days.
- No customer lost a single satoshi.
- Bybit remained solvent and continued operating throughout.
- The exchange has since published detailed post-mortems and tightened cold wallet procedures.
That’s the steel-man case. The bear case: a $1.4 billion hack happened, and the attack vector (a UI exploit during a multi-sig signing process) is the kind of failure mode that can recur on any exchange that handles cold wallet transfers manually. Customer funds were saved by Bybit’s reserves; if the company hadn’t been well-capitalised, the outcome would have been different.
What this changes
For me, personally: I trust both exchanges with active trading capital. I wouldn’t store long-term holdings on either, because I never store long-term holdings on any exchange. The Bybit hack reinforced a rule I already followed — exchanges are venues, not vaults. That’s what hardware wallets are for. The Ledger Nano X is the one I use, and the hot vs cold wallet post covers the split.
For traders moving size, the Bybit hack should be a reminder, not a disqualifier. Bybit handled it as well as any exchange could. But it’s a data point.
The exchange I trade on most days.
BitGet handles spot, futures, copy trading, and bots from one account. Sign-up takes 90 seconds and KYC is usually same-day.
Affiliate link. I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
BGB vs BIT tokens
BGB (BitGet’s native token)
- Fee discount (up to 20%)
- Launchpool / Launchpad qualification
- VIP tier acceleration
- On-chain governance
- Used across BitGet Earn products
BGB has had a strong run as BitGet’s product surface expanded. The token is useful inside the platform — small holdings for fee discounts make sense, larger holdings only make sense as a directional bet on BitGet’s growth.
BIT (Bybit’s former native token)
Bybit retired BIT in 2023 as part of a restructuring. They don’t currently have an active exchange token in the same way BitGet does. This affects:
- Fee discounts are VIP-tier only on Bybit, with no token-based shortcut
- No equivalent “Launchpool” loyalty mechanism for token holders
For users who want the option to lower fees by holding a small token bag, BitGet’s BGB is the clearer choice.
Geography
Both exchanges are geo-blocked in the same major markets.
- US: Blocked on both. Use Coinbase, Kraken, or Gemini instead.
- UK: Restricted access. Both have UK-compatible products with some limits.
- EU: Mostly available, MiCA-affected.
- Canada: Blocked on both.
- Singapore, Australia, most of Asia: Available on both.
If you’re in a restricted jurisdiction, using a VPN to bypass exchange restrictions can result in account freezes. The compliance teams use a lot more than IP geolocation. I use NordVPN (affiliate) for general security on public WiFi but not for evading exchange geo-blocks — that’s a separate risk profile.
Which to pick by use case
This is the actual decision tree.
Pick BitGet if you:
- Want copy trading with the deepest pool of traders to filter from
- Run a multi-strategy approach across spot, futures, copy, and bots from one account
- Want a wider pair list for futures (660+ vs 400+)
- Want a native token (BGB) for fee discounts and Launchpool
- Trade a lot of alts and want them all in one place
Pick Bybit if you:
- Trade USDC options
- Prioritise BTC/ETH spot liquidity at the very top of the order book
- Like the cleaner UI for spot trading
- Don’t care about deep copy trading or BGB-equivalent token utility
Run both if you:
- Want to compare execution on real trades
- Are size-trading enough that splitting flow between two venues reduces footprint
- Treat one as primary and the other as backup
For most readers, the decision narrows to BitGet on the depth of the product suite and the copy trading lead.
My honest take
I run my primary trading on BitGet. The copy trading network and the bot ecosystem are the two things that keep me there. The fees are competitive, the futures engine is solid, and the platform has shipped meaningful new features every quarter for as long as I’ve used it.
Bybit is the exchange I keep as a backup. It’s well-built, the team is professional, and they handled the February 2025 hack better than any exchange has handled a similar event. If something happened to BitGet tomorrow, Bybit is where I’d move first. But it’s not the platform I’d pick for daily use given the trade-offs above.
If I were a US trader, neither would be available. If I were a beginner, I’d still start on BitGet because the unified product surface beats learning multiple platforms.
For the wider context, the best crypto exchanges ranked list is the parent post.
How to actually learn to trade futures
Picking an exchange is the easy bit. Learning to trade futures without blowing up is the hard bit. Most retail futures traders blow up within 90 days because they didn’t learn position sizing, didn’t set stop losses, or got greedy at 50x. If you want structured education from a community that doesn’t sell pump groups, the one I’m part of is Trade Travel Chill (affiliate). Real curriculum, real traders. Personal recommendation, not a pitch.
Made your pick? Mine is BitGet.
If this post saved you a week of research, signing up through my link is the easiest way to say thanks. Costs you nothing.
Affiliate link.
Frequently asked questions
Is BitGet better than Bybit?
For copy trading, bots, and pair coverage — yes. For BTC/ETH spot liquidity at the top of the order book and USDC options — Bybit. For most retail traders, BitGet’s broader product suite wins overall.
Is Bybit safe after the 2025 hack?
Yes, in the sense that customer funds were fully reimbursed and the exchange remains solvent and operational. The hack was a serious event but Bybit handled it professionally. I still don’t store long-term holdings on any exchange.
Which has lower futures fees, BitGet or Bybit?
Bybit is marginally lower on taker fees (0.055% vs BitGet’s 0.06%). The difference is rounding error for most traders. VIP discounts on both bring fees down to similar levels.
Which has more leverage?
BitGet caps at 125x on BTC and ETH. Bybit caps at 100x on BTC. High leverage is dangerous regardless — neither is recommended above 10x for most traders.
Do both exchanges have Proof of Reserves?
Yes. Both publish monthly Merkle tree Proof of Reserves. Users can verify their own balance is included.
Are BitGet and Bybit available in the US?
No. Both are geo-blocked for US residents. Use Coinbase, Kraken, or Gemini instead.
Which has better copy trading?
BitGet, by a significant margin. The pool of traders to choose from is roughly 5-10x larger, and the filtering tools are more granular.
Which has more spot pairs?
BitGet lists 800+ spot pairs. Bybit lists about 600+. Both cover every major and most mid-caps.
Final word
Both exchanges are good. The honest framing is BitGet has the deeper product, Bybit has the cleaner UI on majors. The Bybit hack changes the calculation slightly but doesn’t disqualify them — customer funds were saved and the company is more security-aware now than before.
If you’re picking one and asking me, BitGet is the answer for the average reader. If you’re a high-frequency BTC/ETH spot trader, Bybit might edge it. If you’re moving real size, run both and split flow.
Right — over to you.
Related posts
