[ANN] FeeEdge: what your exchange really charges, ranked by your real monthly cost

[feeedge]

FeeEdge
What your exchange really charges you, in your numbers, not theirs.

What it is
FeeEdge is a fee comparison tool for crypto traders. You enter how you trade: monthly volume, maker versus taker mix, spot versus perps, typical hold time, the assets you use. It ranks 33 major exchanges by your real all in monthly cost, with trading fees, volume tiers, quoted native token discounts (BNB, GT, BGB, BMX), and perp funding all included. You get a concrete "you could save $X per year" figure in about ten seconds.

Why it exists
The fee schedule on the marketing page is rarely what you actually pay. Tiers, token discounts, funding, withdrawal fees, and conversion spreads move the final number far more than the headline rate, something this forum's Trading Discussion board has been chewing on all week. Nobody keeps an independent record of any of it, so we built one.

What is inside

• Exchange comparison: 33 venues ranked by your real monthly cost, personalized to your trading profile
• Perp funding included, updated hourly
• Withdrawal fees per coin and network, checked daily
• Fee change tracker: every confirmed exchange fee change, dated and human verified, with an RSS feed
• Fee Analyzer: upload a trades CSV and see what you actually paid

Data and verification
Live public APIs first, verified scrapers second, curated data with real verification dates as fallback. Freshness is measured, never faked. A human confirms every detected fee change before it publishes, so parser noise never makes the record.

Free and Pro
Free: run your numbers and see the top 10 venues with your estimated monthly cost (top 5 names blurred). Pro: one time $12, no subscription, 14 day money back guarantee.

Who it is for
Active perp traders first (100K to 10M+ in monthly volume), then fee optimizers, then anyone picking an exchange for the first time.

Honest limitations
These are estimates, not advice. Token discounts apply only when you turn them on, and only for tokens with a published pay-in-token rate (BNB, GT, BGB, BMX). We do not quote KCS, HT, WBT, CET, ASTER, or OKB. We are independent: not owned by any exchange, and rankings are computed, not sold.

Find it
Search FeeEdge, the name is the domain. Newbie account here, so links come later. Feedback wanted: venues we should add, fee types we miss, anything that looks wrong. I answer questions in this thread.

[adamant.im]

Useful angle. Headline maker/taker rates are almost useless for anyone who actually runs continuous order flow.

Two things I'd love to see next if you're taking feature requests:

1) A profile preset for "inventory / liquidity ops" vs pure taker flow. A lot of fee budget for that crowd is maker rebates + cancel/replace behavior + occasional rebalance withdrawals between venues — not retail convert buttons. Ranking that profile separately would make the comparison more honest.

2) Make exchange-token discounts explicit about opportunity cost. Many fee tables quietly assume you already hold BNB / OKB / etc. Showing "discounted rate vs rate if you don't lock the token" side-by-side would save people from fake savings.

CSV Fee Analyzer + dated human-verified fee-change log is the right trust play. Will run a boring mid-cap spot profile through it and report back if anything looks off.

[feeedge]

adamant.im, both are fair requests.

The current calculator lets you set the maker/taker mix and applies published maker rebates where they exist, but it treats the mix as a static percentage. A real inventory or liquidity profile needs maker fill share, rebalance frequency, and the withdrawal routes used between venues. Cancel and replace activity is usually free, but it affects fill rate and how often inventory must be moved. That deserves a separate profile because the existing slider does not cover it.

The token point is also right. FeeEdge currently lets users apply discounts only for the venue tokens they hold, but it does not price the capital tied up or the token risk. Showing the base fee, discounted fee, and required token holding side by side would make the claimed saving more honest.

If you run the mid cap spot profile, post the volume, maker share, and anything that looks wrong. Those ordinary cases are often the ones that expose a bad assumption.

[adamant.im]

Good — that matches how I see it from the liquidity-ops side.

Ran a boring mid-cap spot profile through FeeEdge:

• Monthly volume: ~$250k notional
• Maker share: ~70% / taker ~30%
• Mostly spot, hold time measured in hours–days, not seconds
• No exchange-token discount applied on purpose

Nothing looked obviously broken in the ranking logic. Two small notes from that run:

1) For this profile, withdrawal/network fees barely move the monthly total vs trading fees — so the ranking is driven almost entirely by maker tier + rebate assumptions. That’s fine, but it would help if the result view showed a split: trading fees vs funding vs withdrawals, not only the all-in number.

2) When I leave token discounts off, the “you could save $X” framing still feels a bit salesy if the top venues only win after locking BNB/OKB. Showing “base vs discounted” in the same row would make that clearer (as you already sketched).

I’ll try a second profile later with more rebalance withdrawals between two venues — that’s where the inventory profile would really matter. Keep going; the dated fee-change log is the part I’m most likely to trust long-term.

[feeedge]

That profile is useful because it exposes where the result needs more clarity.

The current result separates trading fees from estimated funding. Withdrawals are not included in the monthly total yet. To calculate them honestly, FeeEdge would need the withdrawal frequency, asset, network, and venue. Otherwise the result would imply precision that the inputs do not support.

On token discounts, FeeEdge does not include BNB, OKB, or other token reductions unless the corresponding toggle is on. A venue that wins with the toggle off is winning on its published tier rate. Still, showing the base and discounted costs side by side would remove that ambiguity immediately.

When you run the rebalance-heavy profile, please include the asset, network, and number of withdrawals per month. That is where withdrawal costs could change the ranking.

[feeedge]

adamant.im, a few of those notes are now live.

The result already splits trading fees from estimated funding. Withdrawals still sit outside the monthly total, for the same reason: without frequency, asset, and network, a withdrawal line would fake precision.

Token discounts still only apply when the toggle is on. The quoted set is BNB, GT, BGB, BMX. We do not quote OKB, KCS, HT, WBT, CET, or ASTER. The ranking table no longer labels those as discounts.

The inventory / liquidity profile and a true base-versus-discounted row are still open. If you run the rebalance profile, the asset, network, and withdrawals per month are what would move the ranking.

[elda34b]

I think adding your link with a separator (like a [dot]) since it's very easy for phishing links to show up in search results. Not to mention if your service isn't yet popular it's almost impossible to find it through search engine. It doesn't help that user IP might affect that too. For example, I tried looking for your service and it shows nothing remotely close to your website.

[feeedge]

elda34b, fair point. Search is noisy and a lookalike domain is a real risk. The site is feeedge [dot] com. I cannot post a live link from this rank yet. If something else comes up first, it is not us.

[adamant.im]

Nice — good that token-discount labeling got cleaned up, and that withdrawals stay out of the total until the inputs are real.

Rebalance-heavy profile (inventory / liquidity-ops style), as requested:

• Monthly volume: ~$250k notional
• Maker ~70% / taker ~30%
• Rebalances: 8 withdrawals / month between two venues
• Asset: USDT
• Network: TRC20 (cheapest common path; not ERC20 on purpose)
• No exchange-token discount

With that shape, withdrawal cost finally shows up as a meaningful line item — enough that a venue with slightly worse maker fees but cheaper/faster USDT-TRC20 withdrawals can beat a “cheaper” fee table that forces ERC20 or slow manual review.

If/when you add an inventory profile, the minimum inputs that would make the withdrawal line honest are exactly what you listed: asset + network + withdrawals/month (+ optional second venue). Happy to re-run once that lands.

[feeedge]

adamant.im, those are the right inputs: USDT, TRC20, 8 withdrawals a month between two venues, about $250k, 70/30, token discount off.

The inventory profile is still not live. Withdrawals stay out of the monthly total until frequency, asset, and network are real fields, which is exactly what you posted. When that lands, this is the first profile I want on it, because 8 TRC20 moves a month is enough for a cheaper withdrawal schedule to beat a slightly better maker table that pushes ERC20.