Fomo vs Pump.fun vs Axiom: Which Social Crypto Trading Platform Fits You?
Answer first
Choose Fomo for a feed-led social trading workflow, Pump.fun for creator and callout research on a live launch surface, and Axiom for detailed token, wallet, and execution filters. The three products overlap, but they do not own the same job. Fomo organizes people and activity, Pump.fun keeps research close to coin creation, and Axiom organizes launch and on-chain variables.
There is no responsible overall winner without a use case. Fomo's leaderboard needs performance normalization. Pump.fun's immediacy needs strict contract and liquidity checks. Axiom's dense data needs definitions and live feature verification. None of the reviewed sources supports a universal cross-platform fee number, so every user must verify the full in-app entry and exit cost.
Token Metrics ranked scorecards
Fomo
Best for: Social feeds, trader profiles, and on-chain leaderboard research.
Watch: Leaderboard transparency is not predictive proof; verify every live order and access condition.
Score breakdown
Overall rationale: Fomo is strongest as a social-first, multichain discovery and research product with unusually explicit first-party custody documentation. Its score is not based on its claimed trader count or trading activity. The principal remaining limitations are that leaderboard transparency is not predictive proof, and educational copy-trading guidance is not sufficient evidence of a complete automatic-copy control set.
Score confidence: Independent audit complete. 6 of 6 required factors have scoreable evidence.
User eligibility: Verify current access. Confirm the current location, account, chain, asset, funding, and feature rules before use.
- Discovery And Signal Transparency90/100 × 25%
-
Fomo documents trader feeds, leaderboards, multiple timeframes, profiles, trade history, win rate, P&L, follows, and notifications. Its first-party materials describe the underlying activity as verified on-chain data. This supports strong discovery and research utility, but does not prove repeatable future performance or automatic copy execution.
First-party evidence: Fomo: Social Crypto Trading App and Web Platform, How Do I Find Profitable Crypto Traders to Follow?, What Are Crypto Trading Leaderboards?
- Execution And Slippage Controls75/100 × 20%
-
Fomo documents on-chain trading, a confirmation-stage fee display, and execution considerations in its copy-trading education. Its terms distinguish Fomo fees from third-party liquidity, gas, protocol, funding, and execution-price costs. The score is below 100 because the reviewed official material does not prove a universal automatic-copy workflow, guaranteed minimum-received behavior, or a complete platform-wide slippage-control matrix.
First-party evidence: What Is Copy Trading? Complete Guide for 2026, Copy Trading Platforms: How They Work and What to Check, Fomo Terms of Use
- Custody And Account Security90/100 × 20%
-
Fomo's current security article explicitly describes a non-custodial smart-wallet architecture, user control of private keys, distributed key shares, secure hardware signing, FaceID for withdrawals and key export, and exportability if the app disappears. The score is not 100 because the claims are first-party product claims and account recovery still depends on the authentication and key-management design.
First-party evidence: Fomo Security and Wallet Architecture, Fomo Terms of Use
- Fee And Total Cost Transparency75/100 × 15%
-
Fomo states that the applicable transaction fee is shown before confirmation and separately identifies third-party protocol, liquidity, gas, slippage, and funding costs. Its terms specify a 0.05% Fomo fee for perpetual transactions. The score is below 100 because spot costs vary by transaction, token, route, and market conditions, and Fomo says some third-party costs may not be fully displayed.
First-party evidence: Fomo Terms of Use, Fomo Security and Wallet Architecture
- Coverage And Access Fit85/100 × 10%
-
Fomo's official security documentation identifies support for Solana, Base, BNB Chain, and Monad through a unified wallet and balance. Its terms also disclose restricted jurisdictions and separate eligibility limits for perpetuals. This is strong multichain fit, with access caveats preventing a perfect score.
First-party evidence: Fomo Security and Wallet Architecture, Fomo vs Phantom Wallet: Full Comparison for 2026, Fomo Terms of Use
- Risk Disclosure And Mitigation70/100 × 10%
-
Fomo's terms disclose third-party protocol dependence, non-custodial responsibility, jurisdiction restrictions, lack of regulatory registration, derivative/perpetual leverage risk, and possible loss beyond initial margin. Its educational material discusses stop-loss, drawdown, allocation, and diversification concepts, but the reviewed sources do not prove that every control is implemented as a live platform feature.
First-party evidence: Fomo Terms of Use, Copy Trading Platforms: How They Work and What to Check, What Is Copy Trading? Complete Guide for 2026
Arithmetic: 90×25% + 75×20% + 90×20% + 75×15% + 85×10% + 70×10% = 82.25; ROUND_HALF_UP = 82.
Axiom
Best for: Filter-led Solana token discovery and active execution research.
Watch: Its audited coverage is Solana-focused; verify current routes, wallet permissions, and quotes.
Score breakdown
Overall rationale: Axiom is best scored as a specialized Solana discovery-and-execution terminal. Its current score should be driven by documented filtering, execution, and MEV controls, not by popularity or activity. The existing 41 score is especially distorted by assigning 25 to custody despite an official non-custodial FAQ and by failing to credit the detailed slippage and MEV control documentation.
Score confidence: Independent audit complete. 6 of 6 required factors have scoreable evidence.
User eligibility: Verify current access. Confirm current account, wallet, Solana route, asset, funding, and location access before use.
- Discovery And Signal Transparency90/100 × 25%
-
Axiom documents Explore and Pulse workflows with new-pair and trending-token views, watchlists, timeframes, liquidity, volume, market cap, transactions, holder concentration, developer holdings, snipers, insiders, bundles, and pro-trader participation. The documentation explicitly warns that high volume can include wash trading, so these are transparent research fields rather than quality guarantees.
First-party evidence: Axiom Pulse, Axiom Explore Tokens, Axiom Finding Tokens
- Execution And Slippage Controls90/100 × 20%
-
Axiom's official market-order documentation describes configurable priority fees, slippage, and MEV protection. Its Solana-fee documentation adds Off, Reduced, and Secure MEV modes, Jito routing, bribe settings, and automatic fee recommendations; the documentation index also links limit orders. This is strong direct evidence of user-facing execution controls, although the pages are dated and settings do not eliminate execution risk.
First-party evidence: Axiom Market Orders, Axiom Solana Fees, Axiom Limit Orders
- Custody And Account Security85/100 × 20%
-
Axiom's official FAQ describes the product as a hybrid trading app and wallet with non-custodial infrastructure, secure key management, encryption, and fully on-chain funds controlled by the user. The score is below 100 because the reviewed public source is a product FAQ rather than a detailed independent audit or complete recovery and incident-response specification.
First-party evidence: Axiom Frequently Asked Questions
- Fee And Total Cost Transparency65/100 × 15%
-
Axiom publishes a base trading fee and tiered cashback and separately documents Solana priority fees, bribes, and network costs. Its execution documentation makes the cost/security tradeoff visible. The score is moderate rather than high because total cost depends on account tier, network conditions, priority settings, MEV mode, and transaction-specific routing.
First-party evidence: Axiom Fees, Axiom Solana Fees, Axiom Market Orders
- Coverage And Access Fit35/100 × 10%
-
The current official documentation reviewed here provides detailed evidence for Solana discovery and execution, including Pump.fun and Raydium migration workflows. It does not establish broad multichain coverage. This is a category-fit limitation, not evidence that the Solana-specialist product is low quality within its supported lane.
First-party evidence: Axiom Pulse, Axiom Solana Fees, Axiom Market Orders
- Risk Disclosure And Mitigation80/100 × 10%
-
Axiom documents concentration, developer, sniper, insider, bundle, holder, liquidity, and wash-trading indicators, alongside configurable slippage and MEV protections. The score is below 100 because the documentation itself warns that MEV protection is not fully effective and several feature pages were last updated one year ago.
First-party evidence: Axiom Pulse, Axiom Explore Tokens, Axiom Solana Fees, Axiom Market Orders
Arithmetic: 90×25% + 90×20% + 85×20% + 65×15% + 35×10% + 80×10% = 78.75; ROUND_HALF_UP = 79.
Pump.fun
Best for: Public launch, creator, callout, and profile research.
Watch: User-generated assets carry material contract, custody, and exit risk.
Score breakdown
Overall rationale: Pump.fun should score as a strong social and token-discovery surface with transparent published fees, not as a full-service managed copy-trading platform. Its lower execution, custody, and mitigation scores reflect actual user responsibilities and missing protective controls, but the current model over-penalizes it by assigning 25 solely where the available official terms already document wallet boundaries, fee estimates, risk warnings, and transaction mechanics.
Score confidence: Independent audit complete. 6 of 6 required factors have scoreable evidence.
User eligibility: Verify current access. Confirm the exact contract, chain, wallet, location, asset, route, and exit conditions before use.
- Discovery And Signal Transparency80/100 × 25%
-
Pump.fun's public Explore surface exposes coin discovery, profiles, following, activity, P&L, open and closed positions, callouts, creator identity, and contract-related discovery fields. These are valuable research and social-discovery inputs, but public profiles and displayed P&L are not independently verified or representative performance records.
First-party evidence: Explore on Pump.fun, Pump.fun Terms and Conditions
- Execution And Slippage Controls65/100 × 20%
-
Pump.fun's terms say the interface may display estimated creator, protocol, and other fees before confirmation and acknowledge that actual charges can differ because of slippage, network conditions, or rounding. The platform supports connected or Privy-generated wallets and transactions, but the reviewed official sources do not document a broad set of user-configurable execution controls such as limit orders, guaranteed minimum received, or stop-loss automation.
First-party evidence: Pump.fun Terms and Conditions, Pump.fun Fees
- Custody And Account Security60/100 × 20%
-
Pump.fun's terms identify Privy as the provider of generated wallets and state that Pump has no control over the wallet or its private keys. That is meaningful evidence of a user-controlled wallet boundary, but the same terms place security and loss responsibility on the user and provide no detailed independent security architecture or recovery assurance.
First-party evidence: Pump.fun Terms and Conditions
- Fee And Total Cost Transparency80/100 × 15%
-
Pump.fun publishes a detailed fee schedule covering bonding-curve fees, PumpSwap tiers, creator fees, protocol fees, LP fees, graduation fees, EVM transaction charges, and possible mobile-user adjustments. It also warns that third-party wallet and network fees are separate and that displayed estimates may differ from smart-contract charges.
First-party evidence: Pump.fun Fees, Pump.fun Terms and Conditions
- Coverage And Access Fit70/100 × 10%
-
Pump.fun's current public platform includes multiple services and its terms define transactions across user-generated digital assets, while the Explore surface presents multichain assets. This supports broad discovery and launch-surface fit, but the reviewed official material does not establish complete chain, asset, route, or jurisdiction coverage for every user.
First-party evidence: Explore on Pump.fun, Pump.fun Terms and Conditions
- Risk Disclosure And Mitigation55/100 × 10%
-
Pump.fun provides unusually direct warnings that user-generated assets can fluctuate significantly, that anyone can create assets, and that users must perform their own due diligence. Its terms prohibit market manipulation and explain wallet and security risks. The score remains moderate because these are disclosures and conduct rules rather than contract screening, asset-safety guarantees, or portfolio-risk controls.
First-party evidence: Pump.fun Terms and Conditions, Pump.fun Explore and Coin Creation Surface
Arithmetic: 80×25% + 65×20% + 60×20% + 80×15% + 70×10% + 55×10% = 69.50; ROUND_HALF_UP = 70.
How scoring works: These category-relative scores use continuous 0-100 factor values and audited vertical weights. Missing evidence is recorded as unknown and blocks score publication; it is never converted into numeric product weakness. Evidence confidence and current user eligibility remain separate from the product score. Read the v2 methodology.
Decision table
| Decision | Practical guidance | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Best feed and leaderboard fit | Fomo | Confirm profile history, several windows, realized and open results, exact action type, chain, and order cost. [1] [2] |
| Best launch provenance fit | Pump.fun | Confirm creator, caller, contract, first timestamp, token controls, pool, and the price change since the call. [3] [4] |
| Best filter and wallet fit | Axiom | Confirm the current filter definitions, alert behavior, contract data, route, and full in-app quote. [5] [6] |
| Best for automatic copying | No winner from the reviewed evidence | Verify a current automatic-copy feature and its allocation, latency, stop, exit, and failure rules before considering it. [7] |
Best for and avoid if
Best for
- Readers who know whether they need a feed, a launch surface, or a scanner before choosing a platform.
- Users comparing research evidence and execution controls instead of popularity or recent platform revenue.
- Traders willing to use more than one source while keeping one canonical contract record.
Avoid if
- You want a single winner that removes the need for token, wallet, liquidity, and order review.
- You plan to compare headline fees without checking route, spread, impact, network, funding, and withdrawal cost.
- You are likely to treat followers, callouts, trending rank, or scanner labels as a buy signal.
The central difference
Fomo starts with the social graph. Its product case is that traders can discover people, view a feed, inspect leaderboards and profiles, follow accounts, and receive alerts near the trading workflow. Pump.fun starts with the coin and its launch environment, then exposes creator and trader identity, public activity, callouts, and positions around it. Axiom starts with market and wallet data, then lets the user filter and act.
This sequence matters. Fomo asks who is worth watching. Pump.fun asks what is happening around this new coin and who is involved. Axiom asks which tokens satisfy a chosen set of launch, holder, transaction, wallet, and market conditions. Choose the product whose first question matches your process.
Performance transparency winner: conditional Fomo
Fomo has the clearest documented leaderboard model. Its help content describes verified on-chain performance, several timeframes, profiles, trade history, win rate, and profit and loss. Pump.fun also exposes position and profit and loss context on public profiles, but its social layer is more closely tied to calls and launches. Axiom's reviewed documents focus more on token and wallet discovery than on ranking human traders.
Fomo wins this category only when the user moves beyond the rank. The record still needs capital, open-position, drawdown, related-wallet, and entry-context checks. Pump.fun can be better for reconstructing one public call. Axiom can be better for examining the wallets and token conditions around it. Transparency depends on the question.
Discovery winner: split by intent
For people-led discovery, Fomo is the strongest fit. For origin and creator-led discovery on its own venue, Pump.fun is the strongest fit. For filter-led discovery, Axiom is the strongest fit. Axiom documents New Pairs, Trending, Pulse stages, watchlists, wallet tracking, and several token-level filters. Pump.fun shows current coin activity and public profiles. Fomo keeps follows and alerts central.
Do not merge the three lists into a popularity score. The same asset can trend on one surface, receive a callout on another, and pass a scanner filter on a third because each system measures something different. Keep the contract constant and record what each signal actually means.
Execution controls winner: verify in-app
Axiom's documentation most directly connects discovery with swaps, conversion, wallets, and broader trading tools. Fomo also presents discovery and trading together. Pump.fun keeps an order close to a fast launch surface. Documentation proves the intended workflow, but a control score depends on the current confirmation screen, which this offline package does not call.
For each product, inspect the input, output, route, expected amount, minimum received, slippage, price impact, platform charge, network cost, approvals, and failure behavior. Automatic copy features need separate allocation and exit controls. The winner is the product that lets your account reject a bad trade with enough information, not the product with the fewest taps.
Fees comparison
Fomo says its spot fee varies and is shown before confirmation, while Fomo perpetuals list a 0.05% platform fee plus third-party costs. Pump.fun lists a 1.25% bonding-curve fee and dynamic PumpSwap tiers from 1.25% down to 0.30%. Axiom lists a 0.95% net Wood-tier fee after 0.05% cashback, plus network, priority, and bribe costs. These rates do not describe the same product or route.
Always verify the current in-app quote. Open the intended order on each available platform at the same size and time. Record expected output, platform fee, spread, price impact, network or priority cost, bribe, funding or conversion cost, and a realistic exit quote. If the contract, route, tier, or access differs, a headline percentage is not a valid winner.
Risk controls by platform
Fomo's main behavioral risk is feed urgency and leaderboard selection. The user needs narrow follows, delayed review, and a complete performance sample. Pump.fun's main risk is launch timing, contract uncertainty, and thin exits. The user needs contract identity, creator and holder checks, and a strict size cap. Axiom's main risk is treating a dense scanner as certainty. The user needs defined filters, field validation, and a rejection log.
All three share wallet, signing, fee, slippage, and liquidity risk. A platform-specific control should sit above a common account boundary: limited funds, strong authentication, reviewed approvals, small withdrawal tests, and no long-term holdings in the high-risk research account.
Which is easier for a beginner
Fomo's consumer social framing may feel easiest to understand, but ease of navigation is not the same as ease of risk. A beginner can read a profile faster than a holder-distribution table and may therefore over-trust the profile. Pump.fun and Axiom expose users to launch-stage decisions that require contract, liquidity, and wallet knowledge.
A beginner should begin with paper observation on any of the three. Fomo is the most reasonable first interface when the goal is to learn how social records are displayed. It is not a shortcut to live copying. Pump.fun and Axiom are better approached after the user can explain contract identity, authorities, pool depth, price impact, and wallet clusters.
Using more than one platform
A multi-source workflow can reduce dependence on one display. A trader might discover a profile on Fomo, locate the original coin and creator context on Pump.fun, and inspect launch or wallet fields in Axiom. This is cross-checking, not a rule that three mentions make a trade stronger. The same promotional activity can propagate across every surface.
Create one record keyed to chain and contract. Store source, timestamp, visible price, liquidity, claim, wallet, and status. Deduplicate repeated signals. If two platforms disagree, investigate the definitions and timing rather than averaging the fields. The most valuable difference may be the one that reveals stale or incomplete data.
Final fit recommendations
Choose Fomo when people, feeds, follows, alerts, and performance-history review are central. Choose Pump.fun when the asset's origin, creator, public callouts, and live launch activity are central. Choose Axiom when filters, watchlists, wallet monitoring, launch stages, and order tooling are central. Choose none when you cannot define a loss limit or verify the contract and exit.
Recheck the decision as products change. August reporting shows that this category is moving quickly and that social features can launch during a competitive cycle. A winner named today can become stale when fields, fees, chains, or access change. The workflow should survive a product refresh even if the rank changes.
Sources for this section: [13]
Worked choice examples
A user who starts with a named trader and wants to compare that person's recent and longer record should begin with Fomo. The work is not complete when the profile opens. The user still needs the linked wallet, realized and open positions, capital context, result concentration, and the current order quote. If the desired action is automatic, the user must prove that current feature and its controls separately.
A user who starts with a newly created coin and wants to know who launched and called it should begin with Pump.fun. The decision then moves to the exact contract, creator, authorities, holder pattern, pool age, and difference between call time and current price. If the public call arrived after the move or the exit cannot support the intended size, the platform fit does not rescue the trade.
A user who starts with a rule such as new pairs with defined liquidity and holder conditions should begin with Axiom. The saved filter, field definitions, wallet labels, activity quality, and live order route must be recorded. If a dense screen produces more candidates than the user can verify, narrow the filter or remain in observation mode. The best platform is the one that supports a controlled rejection process.
Decision checklist
- Name the first question: Choose people, launch provenance, or filter-led discovery as the primary need.
- Run the same asset test: Use one chain, contract, time, and order size when comparing available quotes.
- Inspect performance context: For profiles, compare realized and open results, time windows, capital, and entry timing.
- Inspect token context: For launches, compare creator, authorities, holders, pool age, liquidity, and wallet activity.
- Price the same route: Record all visible charges, spread, impact, network cost, minimum output, and exit quote.
- Test rejection controls: Confirm that alerts, filters, and order screens help you stop when the setup fails.
- Keep the account limited: Separate experimental funds from long-term custody and unrelated wallet approvals.
Risk review
| Risk | Why it matters | Control |
|---|---|---|
| False equivalence | The products organize different evidence and cannot be ranked by one feature count. | Define the research job before comparing platform fit. |
| Cross-platform echo | The same promotion can appear on several surfaces without independent support. | Deduplicate by contract, wallet, timestamp, and original source. |
| Fee mismatch | Different routes or times can make headline cost comparisons invalid. | Quote the same contract and size, then include every entry and exit cost. |
| Stale documentation | Features and definitions can change during rapid product competition. | Verify every relied-on field in the live app before use. [13] [5] |
| Behavioral urgency | Feeds, movers, and pulse views can all push a user toward fast action. | Require a written contract, liquidity, and risk check before any order. |
These controls reduce avoidable errors. They do not remove market, contract, custody, or legal risk.
How this page was evaluated
The scorecard uses the category-relative v2 continuous 0-100 model, calibrated August 25, 2026. Each required factor receives an evidence-backed score across the full range, then its audited vertical weight is applied. Missing evidence is stored as unknown and blocks publication of the overall category score; it never becomes numeric product weakness. Score confidence and current user eligibility are reported separately. Use the methodology link above for the full rubric. A category score is a decision aid, not universal user suitability or a promise of profit or platform safety. We recheck volatile product, fee, access, and rule facts against the cited pages before release.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Discovery And Signal Transparency | 25 |
| Execution And Slippage Controls | 20 |
| Custody And Account Security | 20 |
| Fee And Total Cost Transparency | 15 |
| Coverage And Access Fit | 10 |
| Risk Disclosure And Mitigation | 10 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is better: Fomo, Pump.fun, or Axiom?
Fomo fits feed and leaderboard research, Pump.fun fits launch provenance and callouts, and Axiom fits filter and wallet-led discovery. There is no overall winner without a use case. [1] [3] [5]
Which is best for beginners?
Fomo may be easier to navigate as a social interface, but a beginner should use paper observation first. None of the three removes token, liquidity, wallet, or execution risk.
Which has the lowest fees?
The reviewed primary sources do not support one universal cross-platform rate. Compare current in-app entry and exit quotes for the same contract, route, size, and time.
Can I use all three together?
Yes, as research sources. Keep one contract-based record, preserve timestamps, deduplicate repeated promotion, and do not treat agreement among surfaces as independent proof.
Sources checked
- Fomo: Social Crypto Trading App and Web PlatformScope: Fomo presents a social-first crypto trading product with web and mobile access, a trader feed, leaderboards, alerts, multichain trading, funding features, and a first-party claim of 500,000 traders. Caveat: Treat the trader count as a first-party current claim, not independently audited user data. Verify current product access in-app.
- How Do I Find Profitable Crypto Traders to Follow?Scope: Fomo says its leaderboards show verified on-chain performance, several timeframes, profiles, trade history, win rate, profit and loss, and follow or notification features. Caveat: A leaderboard does not prove repeatable performance or automatic copy execution. Verify current fields and behavior in-app.
- Explore on Pump.funScope: Pump.fun exposes coin discovery, profiles, following, activity, profit and loss views, open and closed positions, callouts, creator identity, and multichain assets on its public surfaces. Caveat: Public profiles and displayed results are not representative performance evidence. Verify the exact contract, current product state, and executable quote.
- Pump.fun Explore and Coin Creation SurfaceScope: Pump.fun states on its public surface that anyone can create coins and warns that prices can move quickly. Caveat: The warning is not a complete contract-safety review. Users still need exact identity, authority, holder, liquidity, and exit checks.
- Axiom PulseScope: Axiom Pulse documents new-pair, bonding-curve, and migrated-token discovery with filters for concentration, developer holdings, snipers, insiders, bundles, liquidity, volume, market cap, transactions, and pro-trader participation. Caveat: The page says it was last updated one year ago. Verify every current filter and product behavior in-app.
- Axiom Explore TokensScope: Axiom Explore documents new-pair and trending-token discovery, timeframes, filters, and watchlists, and warns that high volume may include wash trading. Caveat: Use the page as feature evidence, not as proof of platform safety, token quality, or trader performance. Verify current availability in-app.
- What Is Copy Trading? Complete Guide for 2026Scope: Fomo's educational guide describes copy trading as a workflow distinct from merely reading a social feed and discusses execution and follower considerations. Caveat: Educational copy does not prove that a specific automatic-copy feature or control is currently available. Verify it in-app.
- Axiom Finding TokensScope: Axiom's documentation index links token discovery, wallet tracking, tweet monitoring, swaps, portfolio, multi-wallet, perpetual, deposit, and withdrawal tools. Caveat: An index describes intended product scope, not live availability or accuracy. Verify the current account, chain, route, and controls in-app.
- Axiom ConvertScope: Axiom's Convert documentation describes moving crypto into USDC from the wallet area as part of its execution workflow. Caveat: The page does not establish a universal route or total fee. Verify assets, chain, routing, approvals, minimum received, and the current in-app quote.
- Fomo Terms of UseScope: Fomo's terms say spot fees vary by transaction size, type, token, and routing and appear before confirmation. They list a 0.05% Fomo fee for perpetual transactions, plus third-party protocol, liquidity, gas, slippage, and funding costs. Caveat: Do not imply a fixed spot fee or universal eligibility. Verify the current in-app quote, product terms, and local access before acting.
- Pump.fun FeesScope: Pump.fun documents a 1.25% total fee for bonding-curve trades and dynamic PumpSwap tiers that decline from 1.25% to 0.30%, split among creator, protocol, and liquidity-provider components. Caveat: The tier schedule and other route costs can change. Verify the current fee table and in-app quote before each transaction.
- Axiom FeesScope: Axiom documents a base trading fee and tiered cashback. Its public Wood-tier documentation lists a 0.95% net fee after 0.05% cashback, with Solana network, priority, and bribe costs added separately. Caveat: Tier rewards and network-fee settings can change. Verify the current account tier and complete in-app transaction quote.
- Fomo and Pump.fun Battle for Trader Flow in Solana's Memecoin MarketScope: Crypto Briefing reported Fomo's sixth consecutive weekly volume record, weekly revenue above $2 million, a brief daily-fee lead over Axiom on August 6, and new Pump.fun social features and activity. Caveat: The report labels alleged exclusivity payments as unverified. Do not repeat those allegations as fact or use activity as proof of user returns.
