Aster vs Hyperliquid: Which DEX token really leads after November’s divergence?
Both Aster and Hyperliquid have emerged as prominent names in the decentralized perpetuals trading space, but November drew a clear line between their token performances. While trading activity on their derivatives platforms looked surprisingly similar, their native tokens told very different stories on the price charts.
Over the past 24 hours, Aster (ASTER) slipped by 0.56%, with daily trading volume hovering around 514.92 million dollars at the time of measurement. Hyperliquid (HYPE) saw a deeper pullback, losing about 1.54% and changing hands near 31.17 dollars. Part of this weakness can be attributed to broader market sentiment: Bitcoin’s recent volatility weighed on risk assets, and the overall mood across the market remained cautious and fear-driven.
Short-term, neither DEX token shows signs of an imminent explosive rally. The macro environment does not currently favor aggressive risk-on positioning, and traders have been hesitant to chase altcoins. Even so, Aster has managed to stand out by outpacing Hyperliquid in one crucial metric: token trading volume. This strength has translated into a better month-on-month price performance, turning Aster into the relative winner of November.
Trading volume: Aster takes the spotlight
Data on token trading activity reveals a clear edge for Aster. Its Token Trading Volume has consistently surpassed Hyperliquid’s for most of the observed period. Only towards the end of October did HYPE briefly overtake ASTER in daily token volumes.
Looking at the 90-day cumulative token trading volume, Aster already maintains a comfortable lead, even though it has not yet completed a full 90-day trading history. That means, despite being the younger token in terms of market life, ASTER has managed to attract more consistent buying and selling interest than HYPE over the medium term.
In contrast, when shifting focus from spot to derivatives, a different picture appears: parity rather than dominance.
Perpetuals volume: a near dead heat
On the DEX side, the perpetual futures trading volume for both platforms has been almost identical. Over the latest 7-day window, Aster recorded perp volume of about 63.7 billion dollars, while Hyperliquid was only a fraction behind with 63.4 billion dollars. This near tie suggests that, at the protocol level, both exchanges command similarly strong user engagement in derivatives trading.
This is an important nuance: Aster’s token is winning the battle of spot trading volumes, but the underlying trading engines of both platforms remain competitive. For traders who care about actual exchange usage rather than token hype, this puts Aster and Hyperliquid much closer than their token charts might imply.
Price performance: ASTER rallies, HYPE retreats
The contrast becomes stark when looking at November’s price performance. Aster ended the month up approximately 10.36%. Earlier in November, ASTER surged from around 0.82 dollars to about 1.40 dollars, a strong rally that continues to cushion its more recent pullback over the past week.
Hyperliquid, on the other hand, closed the month deeply in the red. HYPE fell by roughly 28.92% across November, forming a bearish market structure and running into firm resistance near the 34-dollar region. This persistent rejection at 34 dollars has turned that level into a notable ceiling for bulls, highlighting sellers’ control over the short- to mid-term trend.
The divergence is therefore clear: while both tokens have faced short-term corrections, Aster’s broader November trajectory has been positive, whereas Hyperliquid has endured substantial downside.
Valuation: the P/F ratio flags a potential red zone for Aster
One of the most telling metrics for comparing the two tokens is the Price-to-Fees (P/F) ratio, calculated here using the circulating supply. This ratio essentially measures how expensive a token is relative to the revenue (fees) its protocol generates. Lower P/F ratios suggest that the token is cheaper compared to the underlying protocol’s fee income; higher ratios indicate a richer valuation.
In this comparison, Aster’s P/F ratio is significantly higher than Hyperliquid’s. Such an elevated P/F suggests that, based purely on current fee generation, Aster might be dramatically overvalued. Hyperliquid, while not necessarily “cheap,” appears less stretched on this metric.
There are two main ways to interpret this discrepancy:
1. Growth expectations are priced into Aster.
Investors might be assigning ASTER a premium because they believe its fee revenue will grow rapidly over time, catching up to its valuation. In this narrative, today’s high P/F ratio is a bet on tomorrow’s expansion.
2. Possible misrepresentation or lag in fee data.
If fee figures are incomplete, delayed, or not fully capturing Aster’s activity, the P/F ratio may be overstating the overvaluation. A gap in data quality could easily exaggerate the difference between ASTER and HYPE.
Either way, the numbers show a widening valuation gap. Aster commands a richer multiple, while Hyperliquid looks comparatively more conservative from a fee-based valuation standpoint.
Is Aster truly overvalued – or just ahead of the curve?
Labeling Aster as “overvalued” depends on time horizon and investor perspective. Over the short term, a high P/F ratio often translates into vulnerability: any disappointment in growth or a decline in trading activity can trigger sharper corrections, as market participants reprice the token closer to its realized fundamentals.
However, in high-growth segments such as decentralized derivatives, early leaders routinely trade at elevated multiples for extended periods. If Aster continues to expand its user base, strengthens liquidity, and captures a larger share of perpetuals trading, today’s premium could eventually appear justified in hindsight.
Hyperliquid, with its lower P/F ratio, may appeal more to value-oriented or risk-conscious participants who prefer to pay less for each unit of fee revenue generated. The trade-off is clear: Aster offers a narrative of momentum and growth, while Hyperliquid presents a story of more measured pricing relative to current fundamentals.
Market sentiment: fear, macro headwinds, and short-term caution
The underperformance of both tokens on a daily basis cannot be isolated from the broader macro picture. Bitcoin’s recent swings have rattled confidence, and many traders have shifted towards defensive positioning. In such an environment, even fundamentally strong projects struggle to mount sustained rallies.
Under conditions of fear, high-multiple assets like Aster often experience more volatility as investors rotate into safer or more “fairly valued” names. Conversely, tokens like HYPE that are already discounted relative to peers may find a base more quickly but can still suffer from low demand if risk appetite remains depressed across the board.
For now, the backdrop argues against expecting an immediate, aggressive uptrend in either token without a clear improvement in the overall crypto climate.
What should traders and investors watch next?
For those evaluating ASTER and HYPE beyond November’s snapshot, several metrics and developments will be crucial:
– Sustainability of perp volume:
If Aster continues to match or exceed Hyperliquid in perpetuals activity over extended periods, its premium may remain justified. Should Hyperliquid gain the upper hand in consistent volume, the valuation gap could narrow.
– Fee growth trajectory:
Monitoring changes in protocol fees will be key to reassessing the P/F ratios. Aster needs tangible fee expansion to “grow into” its higher valuation, while Hyperliquid could benefit from even modest fee growth given its lower starting point.
– Token utility and design:
Governance rights, revenue-sharing mechanisms, staking rewards, and token sinks (such as buybacks or burns) can significantly affect long-term value accrual. Structural advantages in tokenomics could offset short-term price underperformance.
– Resistance and support levels:
On the technical side, HYPE must reclaim and hold above the 34-dollar resistance to negate its bearish structure. For Aster, preserving higher lows relative to the early-November rally zone between 0.82 and 1.40 dollars would help maintain its bullish edge.
Which token stands stronger after November?
Viewed strictly through the lens of November’s performance and current metrics:
– Stronger price and trading momentum: Aster
ASTER has appreciated by over 10% during November, enjoyed a sharp rally earlier in the month, and led in token trading volume. It has clearly outperformed HYPE on the price chart over this period.
– More conservative valuation relative to fees: Hyperliquid
HYPE’s lower P/F ratio signals that, based on present fee generation, it is priced more modestly. For participants prioritizing fundamentals and relative value, this may make Hyperliquid the more attractive option.
In essence, Aster currently stands stronger from a performance and sentiment perspective, but it also carries a heavier valuation burden. Hyperliquid looks weaker on price but arguably sturdier in terms of fee-based metrics.
Strategic considerations: growth vs value in the DEX perp race
Choosing between ASTER and HYPE becomes a question of strategy:
– Those who prioritize momentum and market attention may lean toward Aster, accepting higher valuation risk in exchange for stronger recent performance and higher trading interest.
– Those who prefer relative value and fundamental alignment may gravitate to Hyperliquid, wagering that its lower P/F ratio and comparable perp activity set the stage for a catch-up phase once sentiment stabilizes.
In the rapidly evolving DeFi derivatives sector, leadership can change quickly. For now, Aster has claimed the narrative win for November, but whether it can maintain that lead—or whether Hyperliquid closes the gap—will depend on how both protocols convert activity into sustainable revenues and long-term token value.
All information above is provided for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as financial or investment advice. Trading, buying, or selling cryptocurrencies involves a high level of risk, and every participant should carry out their own research and due diligence before making any decisions.