A Comparative Analysis of Market Depth for Futures & Spot on Top Centralised Exchanges By Simplicity Group
Analysing 16,000 data points to understand the market depth of the leading 35 cryptocurrencies across 7 global centralised exchanges.
Executive Summary
Here’s the extracted text formatted for your blog:
This research explores over 16,000 data points to analyse the market depth of 35 leading cryptocurrencies across several prominent centralised exchanges (CEXs): Binance, ByBit, OKX, KuCoin, Coinbase, MEXC, and Bitget. Using raw data obtained via each exchange’s APIs, this research aims to assess whether there is a correlation between an exchange’s brand and the depth of its order books.
The study examines both the average depth of spot and futures markets for each cryptocurrency across exchanges over a four-day period, as well as aggregated depth data for a holistic view of each exchange’s overall liquidity. This approach provides insights into which CEXs may provide the most favourable conditions for trading and token launches based on available order book data.
The analysis reveals several key findings.
- Exchanges have much deeper order books for certain cryptocurrencies than others, showcasing possible preference. This could stem from a wide array of factors such as differences in chosen market makers or distinct relationships between exchanges and projects.
- The order book depth for futures versus spot trading on the same exchanges for the same tokens can vary significantly. For example, Binance experiences huge depth for BNB on spot but minimal amounts on futures. This indicates a difference in users between exchanges, whereby some attract more futures traders and others spot.
- Futures order books in general have greater uncertainties than their spot counterparts, with some exchanges presenting data particularly far from the median. For example, Bitget’s futures order books are heavily bid-dominated, or MEXC’s futures order books are significantly larger than those of other exchanges.
- Last, whilst the raw data on market depth may be accurate and accessible, the question of whether those orders are actually executable is one that we cannot assess without risking a substantial amount of capital.
Overall, the exchanges exhibit significant differences in order book depth both across tokens and trading types. Whilst we’re aware of the report’s limitation of purely relying on raw data directly from exchange APIs, we believe these findings provide actionable insights. We hope this research acts as a stepping stone for deeper research into market-making strategies and activities of exchanges behind the scenes.
1.1 Introduction
What is Market Depth?
Market depth is the measure of liquidity within a market for a given asset, often referred to as the ability of the market to sustain large orders without making an impact on the asset’s price, known as slippage. It represents the total number of open orders, bids and asks, across different price levels below and above market price present in the order book at a given moment, providing a granular perspective of the demand and supply of an asset; in essence, the potential buy and sell pressure.
Therefore, deeper market depth allows traders to execute larger orders with less slippage, moving in and out of positions more smoothly without causing significant changes in market prices.
For example, if BTCUSDT has $1M in bids currently, it means there is $1M worth of buy orders waiting at ever-decreasing BTC prices to enter the market (e.g., $100k buy order at $65,000, $100k at $64,900, etc.). These buy orders are waiting for someone to sell BTC; otherwise, they will not be triggered. If a whale comes with an order to sell $500k worth of BTC, the price of BTC will keep falling until that order meets $500k worth of bids. If there is only $1M in bids, then BTC’s price might drop by a significant amount, in our example, down to $64,500. However, if there is $100M in bids, BTC’s price will probably not move more than a dollar.
Why is Market Depth Important?
Market depth is important because it reflects the level of liquidity of an asset and thereby the confidence and sentiment of investors, with a deep market depth signifying interest in the asset, providing assurance that there are broad counterparts available to execute trades.
In spot trading, a deeper market depth allows for better price discovery as when depth is shallow, even small orders can move the price significantly, creating volatility for market participants, and slippage for traders. In contrast, deep market depth allows for easy absorption of orders, enabling prices to reflect the market’s true supply and demand, leading to a more efficient and stable price discovery process.
In futures trading, depth takes an even more critical role due to the opportunity of leveraged trading. More liquidity in the order book ensures that large leveraged positions can be opened or closed with minimal market disruption, especially when also trying to manage risk across multiple timeframes.
Overall, in spot trading, market depth shows investors at what price levels, and how efficiently, trades can be executed, as it provides a clearer view of available liquidity in real-time. In futures trading, market depth shows the same thing, but also greatly influences the ability to manage leveraged positions, hedge risk, and maintain active orders across derivative markets.
In the crypto market, there are a variety of exchanges to choose from, each offering a wide range of listed assets and trading tools. However, a shiny exterior is not a testament to the underlying ability of an exchange to carry out market orders; it is often very difficult to account for real market depth due to a lack of knowledge and/or access to data. Without taking depth into account, executing trades brings uncertainty and can be unfavourable due to slippage.
Moreover, from a different perspective, launching a project on a centralised exchange with low market depth can be problematic in light of wanting more users and greater volume for the token.
Whilst depth is a factor of the market makers and liquidity provided by the project and its users, the user-facing part of this system is the centralised exchange itself. This was one of the driving factors for the creation of this report in which we provide a deep dive into the market depth across top exchanges, analysing some of the most popular spot and futures trading pairs to help traders, retail investors, and projects objectively assess the liquidity on the top exchanges, and make more informed decisions when investing or launching tokens.
The upcoming sections of this report will delve into our methodology, limitations for this report, and the comparative analysis between exchanges, highlighting liquidity across both spot and futures pairs.
Report Objective
This report's objective is to show which exchange has the deepest market depth, with data that was gathered from the order book APls of each exchange. Using this data, we can draw comparisons between exchanges and draw insights into the liquidity of the top blue chip coins/tokens.
Our analysis focuses solely on market depth of each exchange, however, if one wants to use the data to form an overarching view of market sentiment based on trading volume we recommend focusing on the median market depth across the exchanges as the data provided by each exchange cannot be verified. Other limitations in our research are detailed below the methodology section.
1.2 Methedology
Data Collection Process
The methodology for this report consisted of utilising order book APIs from some of the top crypto exchanges: Binance, ByBit, OKX, KuCoin, Coinbase, MEXC, and Bitget. All exchanges have publicly available order book APIs that can be used to request relevant information about any trading pair, including main metrics like current price, bids and asks in their order books, to name a few. For this analysis, we gathered data for both futures and spot.
For the spot analysis, we initially collected data from 150 price levels closest to the mid-price to maintain consistency across all the exchanges’ data. However, the 150 price levels are given by the API based on where the bids and asks are located, indicating the 150 price levels that are closest to each asset’s mid-price in both directions; this granularity of data varies significantly between exchanges, some of them including price levels only cents apart, while others spanned a much wider price range. Thus, we then decided to narrow the data by looking at relative depth instead of limiting the data to 150 data points, using orders within specific percentages of the mid-price to capture the same data collection strategy we implemented for futures.
This approach of analysing only a percentage of depth was based on the market cap of each token to account for the different liquidity tied to a larger market cap. For example, BTC was the only token where we examined depth within 0.01% (in spot) of the mid-price, given its high market cap and liquidity. ETH was analysed within 0.1%, while tokens such as BNB, SOL, XRP, DOGE, TRX, TON, ADA, AVAX, and SHIB were examined at 1%. All other tokens were analysed at a 2% depth from the mid-price. This choice was a result of the inverse of the number of figures in the cryptocurrency’s market cap, whereby Bitcoin’s 13-figure market cap warranted 0.01% depth, Ethereum’s 12-figure market cap warranted 0.1%, and so on.
As a note on the futures data, the initial approach of using 0.01% depth from BTC’s current price seemed reasonable due to its large market cap, alas, we encountered consistent data issues across all exchanges’ APIs at this range. Therefore, we broadened the range to 0.1% from the mid-price, only for futures, which happened to provide data that seemed more reliable and stable for the analysis.
Additional Exclusions
Also, Coinbase was excluded from the futures data as it offers futures trading for only a limited selection of tokens, and their futures API is currently in beta, which could have posed hurdles or inconsistencies for collecting data.
We utilised a 4-day average to ensure the data was representative of real depth conditions. The methodology to calculate the averages consisted of capturing multiple snapshots of each exchange, for every asset, over the course of 4 days, with each snapshot being taken at least an hour apart. These snapshots were sent into a single database which turned into the foundation for this analysis, resulting in a final database with over 16,000 data points. We used an average of the 4-day observations to minimise the impact of unstable or atypical data points, as averaging data naturally smooths out irregularities and provides more objective metrics. In the end, we calculated separate averages for each token’s depth conditions across the different sections of this report: for futures pairs, spot with 150 price levels, and spot with relative depth.
Data Analysis and Visualisation Tools
In order to fetch data from APIs and utilise it to analyse market depth, we decided to use Python due to inherent strengths for data analysis and its flexibility to fetch data from APIs in real time while instantly using fetched data for our corresponding analysis queries. This allowed us to perform continuous observation of the exchanges’ order books while having the raw data alongside visual interpretations.
Python Tools Used
The following libraries were used for the analysis, each of them providing different functions and tools for it:
- Pandas: A library for data manipulation and analysis, providing data structures like DataFrames to handle structured data efficiently.
- NumPy: For numerical computing, it offers fast array-processing and mathematical functions to perform operations on large datasets.
- SciPy: Used for advanced statistical analysis and scientific computing, providing tools for complex data processing and functions like Z-score calculation.
- Matplotlib: A core library for creating visualizations that allows the generation of plots and charts to represent data.
- Seaborn: Built on top of Matplotlib, Seaborn simplified the creation of more aesthetically pleasing statistical visualizations.
Visualization Tools
Bar charts are used to display and compare quantities across different categories, making them ideal for visualizing discrete data. They help in identifying relative sizes, highlighting differences, and comparing multiple data sets at a glance. By representing categories with bars proportional in length to their values, bar charts provide a clear, visual way to understand distribution, frequency, and trends across various segments in our analysis.
In this report, the bar charts are particularly useful for comparing depth, composed of two variables, bids and asks. Depth itself is separated by exchange, allowing for a detailed view of liquidity distribution across platforms.
Criteria for Selecting the 35 Cryptocurrencies
For selecting the cryptocurrencies included in the analysis, we went through the ranking by market capitalization and went backwards until we had a list of 35 tokens with almost all listed on the 7 exchanges for this research.
Despite Coinbase not having listed some of the tokens, we went on with the analysis and decided to include it because of this fact as their presence in the space is undoubtedly important, having more than 110M users worldwide (according to last information available from Q4 2022).
In the end, this process led to the analysis of the following 35 tokens:
BTC, ETH, BNB, SOL, XRP, DOGE, TON, ADA, TRX, AVAX, SHIB, LINK, DOT, BCH, NEAR, LTC, SUI, ICP, FET, UNI, APT, RENDER, STX, XLM, IMX, AAVE, ARB, FIL, INJ, OP, ATOM, WIF, FLOKI, DOGS, and PEPE.
Criteria for Selecting the 7 Exchanges
Regarding the process for the selection and inclusion of exchanges in this report, we included what are considered to be the most important exchanges in terms of user base and known adoption within the crypto space, since this report is aimed at providing insights mainly for traders and founders.
Tokens Used in Analysis
Below is a table that shows how many tokens were listed on each exchange, how many fell outside of the Z-score of 2, and how many were used in the individual exchange analysis with box plots. We also calculated the delta between the number of starting tokens and tokens used in the end analysis, and worked it out as a percentage of the starting tokens. This shows us a ratio of extraordinary tokens to average tokens on an exchange, which is important context to keep in mind.
1.3 Limitations
There are limitations to this research that might have impacted the consistency and reliability of data. Given that the analysis is based on data retrieved from multiple API endpoints across several exchanges, there are factors beyond the control of the research that may influence the outcomes. Below are the most significant limitations identified:
- Unverifiable Exchange Practices
It is important to acknowledge that factors such as market maker-imposed strategies, last-look practices, spoofing, or wash trading could artificially inflate or distort the data provided by the APIs. While this report does not specifically claim that any of the exchanges mentioned engage in, or allow, these practices, we urge discretion; these activities are difficult, if not impossible, for an external observer like us to detect or verify.
- API Data Bugs or Inconsistencies
Some exchanges may provide inconsistent, unordered, or discrepant data via their APIs. While there are some conventionalities in the way that APIs order the output data, each exchange is different and not always the most effective at communicating what data is displayed. For this reason, each of the exchanges’ particularities could’ve added into the inconsistency, making it more difficult to get accurate data from their APIs.
For example, discrepancies such as an exorbitantly high or low market depth (e.g., an exchange reporting trillions of dollars in depth and zero bids/asks a few moments later) are likely due to either temporary bugs or systemic issues with the exchange’s API. These inconsistencies can skew the data analysis, leading to unreliable conclusions.
- Additionally, these phenomena might have also been caused by highly volatile dynamics, particularly in futures trading, characteristic of crypto markets, where leverage plays a significant role. As leverage amplifies price fluctuations, the market depth can shift dramatically in short periods, and this can result in inconsistent data when querying several API endpoints quickly and repeatedly over a short period of time.
- Dynamic Behaviour of Order Books
Order books are highly volatile, with bid and ask prices moving constantly, especially during periods of high trading volume or market volatility. Since this report relies on real-time data fetched from multiple exchanges at once, small timing differences in API requests can result in large discrepancies between the reported order book depths, even with the process being largely automated. This was particularly problematic when querying multiple exchanges sequentially, as even small time differences caused significant changes which might make one exchange’s depth look considerably better than others but that information changing quickly in a matter of seconds.
- Time Period
This report focuses on data collected over a 4-day time frame, taking multiple snapshots of market depth for the chosen tokens and exchanges over this period and averaging the data. This approach offers valuable insight into the depth given recent market conditions, but it does not account for historical trends or fluctuations in depth over a longer period in time. The primary goal was to provide an initial dive into the depth data, giving a look at liquidity across exchanges in a way that is representative of the exchanges’ depth provisioning conditions. A more comprehensive analysis involving more extensive historical data could be conducted in the future as a deeper continuation of this report, allowing for better understanding of long-term market patterns.
- Depth Measurement and Price Levels
This selective depth analysis provides a focused view of liquidity but does not capture deeper levels that may impact overall market dynamics.
1.4 Exchange Introductions
Binance
- Year founded: 2017
- Avg. monthly visitors (as of Sept 4th): 53.9Mn
- Registered users: 200Mn
- Spot 24h volume (as of Sept 4th): $13.8Bn
- Total token pairs: 1,264
- USDT pairs: 393
Founded in July 2017 by Changpeng Zhao and Yi He, both of whom had prior experience at OKCoin, Binance's leadership brought a wealth of industry expertise. Changpeng Zhao, an alumnus of a prestigious Canadian university with a background in software engineering, previously held roles at Blockchain.com and the Tokyo Stock Exchange, which equipped him with a solid foundation for spearheading Binance's rise.
The platform's success was catalyzed by an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) in July 2017, raising $15M through the sale of Binance Coin (BNB) at an initial price of $0.115 per token. Since then, BNB has experienced exponential growth, reaching $224 by October 2023 and currently ranking as the fourth-largest altcoin by market cap.
Within just six months of its inception, Binance became the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume; a position it has retained ever since. Over the years, Binance has secured a dominant role within the crypto sector, widely recognized as the most popular and successful platform for digital asset trading.
ByBit
- Year founded: 2018
- Avg. monthly visitors (as of Sept 4th): 27.5Mn
- Registered users: 40Mn
- Spot 24h volume (as of Sept 4th): $5.1Bn
- Total token pairs: 593
- USDT pairs: 491
ByBit is a prominent cryptocurrency and derivatives exchange that was launched in late 2018 and quickly became a go-to platform for trading perpetual contracts with up to 100x leverage. Despite being relatively new, ByBit has rapidly grown in popularity, earning a reputation as one of the most liquid and trusted exchanges globally.
Specializing in derivatives, ByBit offers perpetual contracts for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, EOS, and Ripple. Since its inception in March 2018, the platform's growth has been impressive, drawing traders from around the world with its user-centric approach and innovative trading features. ByBit's journey from a newcomer to a major player in the industry is marked by key milestones and achievements that continue to shape its success.
The exchange was founded by Ben Zhou, who brought with him extensive experience from the Forex industry. Recognizing the need for a more stable and reliable trading platform in the cryptocurrency space, he set out to create a solution that catered to both experienced traders and newcomers alike.
From day one, ByBit focused on enhancing the trading experience. The platform introduced features like advanced risk management tools, lightning-fast order execution, and deep liquidity to ensure smooth and efficient trading. Additionally, ByBit's interface is fully customizable, allowing traders to tailor their experience according to their preferences, which has become one of the exchange's standout qualities.
OKX
- Year founded: 2017
- Avg. monthly visitors (as of Sept 4th): 16.9Mn
- Registered users: 18Mn
- Spot 24h volume (as of Sept 4th): $2.05Bn
- Total token pairs: 529
- USDT pairs: 308
OKX, formerly OKEx (rebranded in 2022), is a major player in the cryptocurrency exchange world, established in 2016. With a recent rebranding and platform upgrade, it’s time for a fresh look at what OKX offers, as they continue rolling out new features.
Initially known for spot trading, OKX now provides access to futures, perpetual swaps, options markets, and more. Beyond trading, users can earn, explore NFTs, take out crypto loans, join Jumpstart launchpads, use trading bots, and participate in DOT slot auctions. These additions have given traders a wide array of tools to engage with the crypto market. However, it’s important to note that regions like the U.S. and other restricted areas don’t have access to OKX’s derivatives.
Founded in Hong Kong, OKX relocated to Malta in 2018, driven by favorable crypto regulations, while maintaining its Seychelles headquarters. Available in over 100 countries, the exchange serves both institutional and retail traders and handles over $2Bn in daily spot volume, making it the fourth exchange in terms of trading volume.
KuCoin
- Year founded: 2017
- Avg. monthly visitors (as of Sept 4th): 5.8Mn
- Registered users: 34Mn
- Spot 24h volume (as of Sept 6th): $540Mn
- Total token pairs: 1,101
- USDT pairs: 784
KuCoin, founded in 2017 by Chun “Michael” Gan and Ke “Eric” Tang, has quickly established itself as a prominent player in the crypto industry. By 2020, it became one of the top exchanges globally, serving over 30M users across the world. KuCoin has facilitated over $1.2Tn in cumulative trading volume since its foundation.
In 2018, KuCoin raised $20M as part of a Series A funding round which helped its rapid growth. In 2022, they secured an additional $150M during their B Series which led to a $10Bn valuation, further positioning KuCoin as a top player in the industry.
However, on March 26th, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed criminal charges against KuCoin and its founders, Chun Gan and Ke Tang, for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and operating an unlicensed money transmittance business, marking an ongoing legal challenge for the company. We are yet to see what happens next.
Coinbase
- Year founded: 2012
- Avg. monthly visitors (as of Sept 4th): 36.6Mn
- Registered users: 110Mn (in Q4 2022)
- Spot 24h volume (as of Sept 4th): $2.08Bn
- Total token pairs: 401
- USDT pairs: 40
Coinbase, one of the world’s leading cryptocurrency exchanges, has become a key player in legitimizing the blockchain industry. When it went public on Nasdaq in April 2021, it marked a milestone for the crypto world, symbolizing its growing acceptance in traditional finance. The so-called "Coinbase effect," where newly listed cryptocurrencies supposedly see price surges, underscores its influence.
Founded in June 2012 by Brian Armstrong, a former AirBnB engineer, and Fred Ersam, a former Goldman Sachs trader, Coinbase began by offering simple Bitcoin transactions via bank transfers. Over time, it expanded to support many more cryptocurrencies and introduced services like Coinbase Pro for professional traders and Coinbase Prime for institutional clients. The platform’s ease of use and secure features quickly attracted attention, leading to significant investments from major firms like Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures.
Coinbase’s rapid growth was fueled by the cryptocurrency boom of 2017 and the subsequent surge in trading volume. By 2020, during the pandemic-driven crypto rally, the company saw record profits, leading to a $100Bn valuation. Despite challenges like regulatory scrutiny and market volatility, Coinbase continues to push the boundaries with initiatives like its L2 network, Base. Today, Coinbase serves millions of users worldwide and partners with major companies like Expedia, Dell, and PayPal to facilitate Bitcoin payments.
MEXC
- Year Founded: 2018
- Avg. Weekly Visitors (Oct 22): 3.4Mn
- Registered Users: 10Mn (source)
- Spot 24h Volume (Oct 22): $1.6Bn
- Total Token Pairs: 2,526
- USDT Pairs: 2,423
MEXC, a cryptocurrency exchange launched in 2018, quickly gained popularity for its high-speed transaction processing, serving over 10M users across 170+ countries. With a powerful trading engine developed by experts from the banking sector, it processes up to 1.4M transactions per second. The platform is user-friendly, supports multiple languages, and is known for its extensive range of cryptocurrencies and trading pairs, catering to both new traders and seasoned investors alike.MEXC has rapidly grown, capturing a 5% global market share and earning accolades such as the "Best Crypto Exchange Asia" award at the 2021 Crypto Expo Dubai. However, despite its growth and recognition, MEXC has encountered significant regulatory issues. In 2023, it faced warnings from financial authorities in British Columbia, Austria, and Germany.
Bitget
- Year Founded: 2018
- Avg. Weekly Visitors (Oct 22): 4.7Mn
- Registered Users: 45Mn (source)
- Spot 24h Volume (Oct 22): $1.4Bn
- Total Token Pairs: 865
- USDT Pairs: 804
Bitget is one of the newer exchanges in the crypto market with its foundation taking place in 2018. It was founded by a team with experience in traditional finance who became interested in blockchain technology in 2015 after reviewing Bitcoin and Ethereum’s whitepapers. Since then, the team believed in the potential that blockchain had for the future, especially for the benefits that it could bring for unbanked people.
Nowadays, Bitget has grown to a user base of over 45Mn registered users who are serviced by a team of more than 1,500 employees distributed across 60 countries and regions. Bitget is characterised by offering spot trading as well as futures, allowing traders to set long and short positions on over 200 coins with high liquidity and low fees. They also offer copy trading for easier trading experience and over 800 tokens listed in total.
2.1 Futures Analysis
Aggregate
We decided to start with futures, given market depth is particularly important to traders, who mostly use futures.
The chart below showcases the aggregated sum of the average bids and asks for futures pairs across all six exchanges offering futures trading, summarising data from all 35 pairs across all the snapshots in which data was collected during the 4-day analysed period. This depth calculation focuses on the range relative to the mid-price for each crypto pair, with depth percentages being adjusted depending on the token being analysed, as mentioned in the methodology section.
The API data reveals that MEXC holds the lead in total depth for futures pairs, surpassing the $900Mn mark with $910.6Mn. Following MEXC, Bitget shows a significant gap in total depth, totaling $172.4Mn in depth, highlighting a considerable variability between the exchanges. KuCoin ranks the lowest in terms of average depth relative to an asset’s mid-price, with $64.7Mn.
MEXC’s prominent depth compared to other exchanges highlights its leading position, while the other exchanges’ depth levels group near or below the $100Mn mark, showing much less variability amongst them. This distribution emphasises MEXC’s apparent edge in futures depth and how it can be considered as a competitive advantage from the traders’ perspective.
Top 10 Pairs
BTC
For Bitcoin’s analysis, we aggregated bids and asks within 0.1% of each exchange’s mid-price over a 10-hour time frame. The exchange with the highest depth for the BTCUSDT futures contract is MEXC, reaching a depth of $116.8Mn. Although there is a massive gap between MEXC and the other exchanges, Bitget stands in the second position for depth at 0.1% from BTC’s price with $9.5Mn.
Regarding the other exchanges, most follow Bitget closely:
- KuCoin with $8.6Mn,
- Bybit with $8.5Mn, and
- OKX with $8.1Mn in average depth.
For this case, Binance stood out as the exchange with the lowest 10-hour average depth, averaging $5.2Mn in depth.
ETH
For the ETHUSDT futures contracts, we see a shift, with MEXC now leading in terms of depth within the 0.1% range from the market price. MEXC outperforms all other exchanges by a wide margin, with total depth exceeding $100Mn.
On the other hand, it’s worth noting that MEXC shows a significant imbalance between bids and asks, with a much higher volume of asks. The other exchanges trail substantially, each holding less than a tenth of MEXC’s apparent depth.
BNB
For BNB, MEXC again leads significantly in depth, surpassing the $14Mn mark. By contrast, ByBit follows but remains behind, just below $6Mn in depth.
It’s also notable that for this futures pair, MEXC maintains higher depth, even though BNB is the token analysed. As will be discussed in the spot section, the BNBUSDT spot pair had the greatest depth on Binance, yet this trend doesn’t carry over to the futures contract, where MEXC takes the lead.
SOL
A similar trend is carried over to the SOL futures contract. Regarding the bid-ask share, most exchanges display a relatively well-maintained balance between bids and asks, indicating stable liquidity and consistent trading interest on both sides. However, Bitget stands out with an odd imbalance favouring bids, suggesting that traders on Bitget have shown a stronger inclination to purchase. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those bids are being filled as no one is selling at those levels.
XRP
Binance, ByBit, and Bitget are closely tied, displaying depth levels that more accurately represent the typical range seen across exchanges. At the other end, OKX and KuCoin rank last for this pair, showing the lowest depth among the group.
DOGE
Binance and ByBit are nearly tied, each surpassing $10Mn in depth. Meanwhile, OKX and Bitget exhibit a notable dominance of bids with minimal asks during the analysed period, suggesting an increase in demand for the asset and a reduced willingness among holders to sell. This bid-heavy imbalance could imply that buyers are willing to buy the asset, but current holders are not open to selling it at the current prices.
TON
Most exchanges, except for MEXC, stand around a similar depth level, each below $2Mn within 1.0% from the mid-price. OKX and Bitget once again showcase an imbalance that favours bids heavily, while other exchanges maintain an average bid-ask split. However, regarding depth levels, nearly all exchanges aside from MEXC show relatively low depth, which suggests a more modest, realistic demand level for this asset across the market. MEXC’s higher depth stands out, contrasting with the lower levels observed on other platforms, but given that almost all other exchanges stand closer, they’re a more accurate representation of real market conditions.
ADA
MEXC leads with $25Mn in depth, showing a greater skew towards asks. Notably, Bitget’s depth is entirely represented by bids, indicating a strong buying presence without matching sell interest, which may suggest heightened demand on this exchange and potential struggles to fulfill buy orders. However, given Cardano’s lack of momentum since the last bull run, this is peculiar.
TRX
For TRX, the depth difference between MEXC and the other exchanges is one of the most pronounced among all pairs analysed. While Bitget does manage to hold an appreciable depth, it still falls far short of MEXC’s and maintains a clear gap from the remaining exchanges. This highlights MEXC’s strong liquidity position for TRX, significantly outpacing its competitors.
AVAX
For AVAX, several exchanges demonstrate substantial depth, with ByBit, Bitget, and Binance closely following the leading position. More noticeably, Bitget ranks as the second exchange in terms of depth; however, its entire depth at the specified percentage from the mid-price consists solely of bids. This bid-only depth highlights strong buying interest on Bitget, suggesting a potential demand imbalance that could influence upward price movement if supply remains limited at these levels. As mentioned before, it can also mean that bids are not being satisfied due to the lack of AVAX holders willing to sell their asset near the mid-price, which can also negatively impact the trading experience.
Conclusion
For futures, MEXC led in depth across the tokens analysed, ranking first in 10 out of the top 10 cryptos by market cap, each analysed at its respective depth range from the mid-price. This solidifies its overall position as the most liquid exchange for futures trading according to the API data. This pattern of ranking first in depth across all of the top 10 cryptos also explains why MEXC still appears as the leader in the aggregate chart. Their robust depth across all futures pairs effectively secures their top position in overall liquidity.
While MEXC stands out considerably with its high depth across futures pairs, this does not necessarily indicate a true representation of overall market demand. When only one exchange shows such pronounced market depth, while others are more closely aligned, it may suggest that MEXC’s liquidity conditions are specific to its platform rather than reflective of broader market sentiment.
In this case, the depth levels on the other exchanges, which are more consistent with each other, could serve as a better indicator of genuine market conditions.
Thus, MEXC’s leading position highlights unique liquidity provisioning methods, and the more modest depths on other exchanges potentially reflect the actual market dynamics. The same can be said to a lesser extent for Bitget, and for the times when certain exchanges (e.g., OKX for ADA) only showed bids with practically no asks.
However, MEXC’s concentrated depth at specific percentages from the mid-price could positively impact the trading experience for active traders, offering better liquidity and reduced slippage for frequent transactions.
Therefore, while MEXC’s standout depth may showcase liquidity conditions made specifically for trading experience, the more modest depths across other exchanges may represent the broader market dynamics more accurately.
3.1 Spot (150 Price Levels) Analysis
Aggregate
The initial analysis for spot pairs involved gathering the total sum of bids and asks across 150 price levels from each asset’s current price. A primary insight here is that, unlike the futures data where MEXC held a notable lead, the depth among exchanges appears relatively closer.
While MEXC still ranks first, exchanges like Binance and Bitget follow closely in second and third positions, showing a more balanced distribution of liquidity across these platforms.
The aggregate depth chart shows that MEXC leads with $3.1Bn in total depth, taking into account bids and asks across 150 price levels around the mid-price. Falling closely behind, Binance and Bitget are tied at $2.7Bn each. On the other hand, ByBit and KuCoin rank last in this analysis, also tied, with a total depth of $0.52Bn each.
Top 10 Pairs
BTC
The 7-exchange chart showcases that MEXC and Bitget have the greatest market depth out of all the exchanges for the BTCUSDT pair, with MEXC dominating considerably and indicating a significantly deeper liquidity pool that surpassed $30Mn on their 4-day average at $32.43Mn. MEXC’s depth is more than six times greater than that of Binance, a surprising difference considering Binance’s status as the largest crypto exchange globally and BTC being the top crypto by market capitalization. Following MEXC, Bitget also shows considerable depth, but not near to MEXC’s scale in this pair’s case.
ETH
In this chart for ETHUSDT, MEXC again shows the highest market depth leading all other exchanges. It is followed by Bitget, which also exhibits substantial depth and doesn’t fall much behind. The rest of the exchanges, including Binance, ByBit, OKX, KuCoin, and Coinbase, display much lower depth by comparison. Notably, most exchanges have a balanced bid-ask ratio, which suggests a relatively even distribution of buy and sell orders.
BNB
Firstly, Binance, unsurprisingly, has the highest market depth for BNBUSDT. This is likely due to the intrinsic relationship between Binance and BNB, as Binance was originally the creator of BNB Chain, and even though it no longer directly controls it, there still is a strong association between Binance and the BNB token which continues to reflect on market depth.
Secondly, MEXC follows with the second-largest depth, indicating that it also has substantial liquidity for BNBUSDT, though it’s still well behind Binance.
SOL
A similar trend is carried over to the SOL futures contract. Regarding the bid-ask share, most exchanges display a relatively well-maintained balance between bids and asks, indicating stable liquidity and consistent trading interest on both sides. However, Bitget stands out with an odd imbalance favouring bids, suggesting that traders on Bitget have shown a stronger inclination to purchase, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that those bids are being filled as no one is selling at those levels.
XRP
Binance, ByBit, and Bitget are closely tied, displaying depth levels that more accurately represent the typical range seen across exchanges. At the other end, OKX and KuCoin rank last for this pair, showing the lowest depth among the group.
DOGE
Binance and ByBit are nearly tied, each surpassing $10Mn in depth. Meanwhile, OKX and Bitget exhibit a notable dominance of bids with minimal asks during the analysed period, suggesting an increase in demand for the asset and a reduced willingness among holders to sell. This bid-heavy imbalance could imply that buyers are willing to buy the asset, but current holders are not open to sell it at the current prices
TON
Most exchanges, except for MEXC, stand around a similar depth level, each below $2Mn within 1.0% from the mid-price. OKX and Bitget once again showcase an imbalance that favours bids heavily, while other exchanges maintain an average bid-ask split. However, regarding depth levels, nearly all exchanges aside from MEXC show relatively low depth which suggests a more modest, realistic demand level for this asset across the market. MEXC’s higher depth stands out, contrasting with the lower levels observed on other platforms, but given that almost all other exchanges stand closer, they’re a more accurate representation of real market conditions.
ADA
MEXC leads with $25Mn in depth, showing a greater skew towards asks. Notably, Bitget’s depth is entirely represented by bids, indicating a strong buying presence without matching sell interest, which may suggest heightened demand on this exchange and potential struggles to fulfil buy orders. However, given Cardano’s lack of momentum since the last bull run, this is peculiar.
TRX
MEXC leads significantly with a total depth exceeding $6Mn, primarily made up of asks. This dominance suggests strong selling interest or higher liquidity availability on the sell side for the TRX/USDT pair. Binance follows as the second-highest in depth, showing a balanced bid-ask distribution around the $3.6Mn mark. Bitget ranks third with a depth of around $3Mn, while ByBit, OKX, and KuCoin display significantly lower depths, each at or below $1Mn.
AVAX
Binance leads in total depth for AVAX/USDT, nearing $2.5Mn while MEXC follows closely behind. Both exchanges exhibit a balanced distribution between bids and asks, indicating robust depth, which is favourable for trading experience. Coinbase also shows considerable depth, whilst ByBit and KuCoin show the lowest depths among the exchanges, with ByBit presenting minimal liquidity.
Conclusion
As mentioned before in the aggregate chart, MEXC narrowly leads in total depth, closely followed by Binance, with Bitget taking the third spot by a small margin. The remaining exchanges fall back significantly behind these top three.
However, a closer look at the charts for the top 10 cryptos provides additional context. With these charts, we appreciate that Binance and MEXC each lead in depth for 3 out of the 10 pairs, while Bitget surprisingly dominates by leading in 4 out of the 10 charts. This dominance by Bitget is reflected in the overall summary chart as they still ranked third on the summary chart.
Nevertheless, it’s important to note that, despite Bitget’s higher count of leading pairs, MEXC and Binance maintain a greater total volume of depth, which contributes to their positions as the top two exchanges by overall depth.
4.1 Spot (Relative Depth)
Aggregate
The second part of the analysis for spot pairs focuses solely on bids and asks closer to each asset’s mid-price. Using the same percentage depths that were previously specified, we concentrated on the levels most relevant to active traders who rely on liquidity near the assets’ price.
The key insight is that compared to the broader spot analysis (using 150 price levels), we see notable changes across all exchanges. MEXC’s depth shows the smallest drop, decreasing from $3.11Bn to $2.42Bn, indicating that much of its liquidity is concentrated near the mid-price. This could allow for larger trades to be executed with minimal price slippage, potentially lowering overall transaction costs for traders.
For other exchanges, the shift between using 150 price levels and the depth closer to the mid-price suggests a lower concentration of bids and asks near the mid-price. This distribution may make these exchanges less attractive to traders focused on efficiency, as they may encounter greater price slippage when trading around the market value.
The table below shows that MEXC leads with $2.42Bn in depth near the asset’s mid-price, followed by Bitget and Binance. KuCoin and ByBit are the least liquid exchanges in this range, each with less than $500Mn near mid-price.
Top 10 Pairs
BTC
While the chart that used only 150 price levels did show MEXC’s dominance, it was less pronounced than this upcoming chart that considers only orders within 0.01% from the mid-price. In this case, the gap between MEXC and the other exchanges’ depth is significantly heightened, to the point where MEXC’s order book conditions skew the conditions of other exchanges and they’re not easy to appreciate.
With 150 price levels, MEXC’s depth stood at around $30Mn. When limiting the analysis to only orders within 0.01% of the price, the depth is reduced to around $25Mn, suggesting that a substantial portion of the depth is in fact concentrated close to the asset’s price.
While this might appear favorable and it could indeed be the case in certain situations, the fact that other exchanges show lower, more aligned depth levels may actually offer a clearer view of true demand on behalf of the trading community, particularly based on the fact that even exchanges with larger active user bases have lower depth.
ETH
MEXC leads by a substantial margin, averaging $20.7Mn in depth over the 4-day analysed period, with a well-balanced distribution between asks and bids. Bitget follows in second place, though with a significant gap from MEXC. Notably, Bitget shows a strong bid-side imbalance, indicating greater buying interest or demand. The other exchanges—including KuCoin, Coinbase, OKX, ByBit, and Binance—exhibit much lower depth levels in comparison, following well behind both MEXC and Bitget.
BNB
The BNB/USDT pair shows the highest depth on Binance, which is partly expected given Binance’s direct relationship with BNB as its native token. Both MEXC and Bitget also display respectable depth for BNB, supporting reasonable liquidity on their platforms. In contrast, ByBit lags significantly, with a more noticeable gap in depth compared to Binance, showcasing a considerable difference in depth availability for this asset.
SOL
Bitget holds the greatest depth for the SOL/USDT pair using orders 1% within the mid-price, averaging over $14Mn in depth with a good bid-ask balance. Binance follows not too far behind with $11Mn in depth, and Coinbase ranks third. All other exchanges, including MEXC, Bitget, OKX, and KuCoin, show similar but lower levels of depth than the top 3.
XRP
Just as with the depth using 150 price levels, Bitget leads in market depth for the XRP/USDT pair, with MEXC and Binance closely behind Bitget’s depth for this pair. Coinbase ranked third while, on the other hand, ByBit, OKX, and KuCoin fall significantly behind the top exchanges, showing considerably lower depth for XRP/USDT.
DOGE
In the analysis using 150 price levels, Binance led in depth for DOGE/USDT, followed by MEXC and Coinbase. The trend remains almost identical with the 1% from the mid price, except now the second spot is held by Coinbase, showing that the exchange's depth for this pair is more concentrated near the mid price while MEXC’s may be spread over a wider range. Despite this, MEXC stands as the third largest depth for the pair. The main remark is that Binance’s depth is fully concentrated near to the asset, as in both cases with the 150 price levels and with 1% from the mid price, the depth remains almost identical near the $3.6M mark.
TON
The analysis with 150 price levels showed that Bitget and Binance had the largest depth for TON/USDT, with MEXC, ByBit, and OKX showing similar depth. The trend and depth conditions remained largely unchanged. Notably, Bitget’s lead showed that the depth is concentrated very close to TON’s current price as with both 150 price levels and relative depth, its depth stood close to the $2.3M mark.
ADA
Bitget remained as the exchange with the largest depth and showed that the depth is located close to ADA's price, with no change in depth from using 150 price levels and relative depth. MEXC and Binance's depth with 150 price levels was located near $2.5M and using relative depth, Binance's gap was increased, falling to $1.5M, showing less depth concentrated near the mid price while still standing at the third place.
TRX
MEXC still stands as the exchange with largest depth, although it's still leading, depth conditions showed less liquidity concentrated near the mid price from $6M with 150 price levels to $3.8M at 1% from the mid price. Interestingly, Bitget surpassed Binance in depth at 1% from TRX's current price, as Binance falls behind having lower depth at this level when compared to 150 price levels, falling from $3.5M to $2M while Bitget shows more consistency.
AVAX
With 150 price levels Binance led with almost $2.5M in depth for AVAX, however, the exchange shows less liquidity 1% from the price with $1.6M. For this reason, MEXC now leads with a null change in depth from 150 price levels to relative depth, meaning there's a good concentration of depth near the asset's price.
5.1 Closing Remarks
By looking at the order book depth of 35 cryptocurrencies across 7 exchanges, we can draw conclusions about which exchanges offer the best liquidity for trading per token and order type, be that due to real user volume or factors such as market-maker strategies.
Whilst there are limitations to the research, notably that the raw data from the APls on current bids and asks isn't in and of itself sufficient in determining real slippage that would occur if trades are placed, it nonetheless offers a valuable comparative visualisation of these order books, offering a deeper perspective on market depth.
As mentioned in the executive summary, significant variations are observed across order books on centralised exchanges, which appear to fluctuate according to the type of contract (spot or futures) and the cryptocurrency being traded.
Although the underlying reasons are unclear, they may be attributed to a combination of factors, including differences in market-making practices, user demographics, institutional relationships, and project-specific agreements.
It is also apparent that the futures order books experience greater deviation from the median than its spot counterparts, a trend that remains unexplained.
As we aim to keep producing reports to uncover ultimate truths about this clouded industry, we hope this report contributes to the topic of market depth, and shines a light on the most popular centralised exchanges.
Yours truly,
Simplicity Group