Which Exchange Has the Deepest Bitcoin Futures Order Book? TokenInsight's September 2026 Report Puts MEXC First Near the Mid Price

 

TokenInsight's September 2026 Crypto Exchange Liquidity Report measured order book depth, trading slippage and bid-ask spreads across nine major exchanges. At the near-touch 0.03% band, MEXC's combined BTC and ETH futures depth came to $21.03 million, the deepest of the nine.

 

In the same report, MEXC's median slippage on a $500,000 BTC spot sell order was 0.005%, the lowest median in the report, while median slippage on a $300,000 silver futures sell was 0.002%, the lowest among all surveyed exchanges.

 

Against the July report, the movement is equally specific. Futures depth at the 0.03% band rose from $15.71 million to $21.03 million, a gain of 33.9%. Spot depth at the 0.03% band rose from $1.76 million to $3.58 million, a gain of 103.4%. Median and P90 slippage on ETH futures sells both fell by roughly 40% to 50%.

 

All of these figures sit at near-touch bands, which is where the large majority of orders actually execute. The 0.03% band equals three basis points, pressed against the best bid and offer. Understanding that is what makes it possible to read why different firms' liquidity rankings reach different conclusions, and which one applies at a given order size.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slippage improved at both the median and the tail. Median slippage on $1 million ETH futures sells fell from 0.015% to 0.008% while P90 fell from 0.022% to 0.013%.

 

One internal comparison quantifies the depth increase: September's $21.03 million measured within the 0.03% band exceeds July's $20.83 million measured out to the wider 0.05% band.

 

Near-touch bands govern the cost of most orders. On the measured data, sell orders up to $1 million show median impact inside one basis point.

 

 

The report covers nine major global exchanges across order book depth, trading slippage and bid-ask spread, measuring BTC and ETH in both spot and futures markets along with gold and silver futures.

 

 

Depth and slippage measure two sides of the same thing. Depth is the resting size; slippage is the price deviation that size produces when an order actually executes. Ranking first on futures depth at the 0.03% band while also posting the report's lowest median slippage on a $500,000 BTC spot sell means the two readings corroborate each other.

 

 

Both reports surveyed nine exchanges, so the changes compare directly.

 

 

 

Median slippage describes the typical case while P90 slippage describes the worst of every ten executions. The relationship between them determines the character of an improvement. A median that falls while P90 holds still indicates depth that thickens only in calm conditions and stays thin under stress. Both falling together indicates the improvement holds in the tail of the distribution.

 

Across both ETH futures order sizes, median and P90 each fell by roughly 40% to 50%. For anyone placing real orders, that means the improvement covers not only the smooth executions but the difficult one as well.

 

 

There is another way to measure the depth increase, requiring no reference to placings at all.

 

Depth measured at a wider band necessarily contains every order within a narrower band, so a 0.05% figure can never be smaller than a 0.03% figure. MEXC's July figure at the 0.05% band was $20.83 million; its September figure at the 0.03% band was $21.03 million.

 

Depth measured within just three basis points in September exceeded all the depth measured within five basis points in July. That conclusion rests purely on two of MEXC's own readings, independent of any cross-venue comparison and therefore unaffected by sample composition.

 

 

Liquidity rankings published by different firms frequently name different leaders. The reason is not data quality but the measurement band.

 

 

The ±1% window is roughly 33 times wider than the 0.03% band. The two answer different questions: near-touch depth governs the immediate execution cost of small and mid-size orders, while wide-band depth governs whether a large order completes within acceptable impact.

 

The structure of the market under the wide-band measure illustrates the point. Per CoinGlass's first-half 2026 derivatives report, executable BTC futures liquidity within ±1% is highly concentrated, with the top two venues together accounting for roughly 64.8%. That firm's conclusion is that liquidity for large BTC orders remains concentrated on a small number of leading venues.

 

None of this conflicts with the near-touch results, because the two serve different order sizes. For an order of tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, price never travels anywhere near 1%, so ±1% depth is irrelevant to it; what determines its cost is how much rests in the first few basis points. That is precisely what near-touch bands measure.

 

For a direct view of how the bands stack, the level-by-level book is visible on the live BTC price page, with the platform's approach set out under platform liquidity and risk control.

 

 

Which band to read depends on how far an order pushes the price, and the measured slippage in the report maps that relationship.

 

 

The gradient is unambiguous. From $100,000 to $1 million, median impact stays inside one basis point, so the 0.01% band determines the cost. At $1 million the P90 reaches 1.3 basis points and enters the 0.03% band, indicating that larger orders or worse moments begin to draw on the second band's resting size.

 

The practical conclusion follows. The large majority of retail and mid-size traders should read the rankings at the 0.01% and 0.03% near-touch bands. Only when a single order is large enough to push price toward a full percent does wide-band depth become the binding constraint.

 

Note that at magnitudes such as 0.003% these figures carry one significant digit, which suits judging the order of magnitude and the applicable band rather than computing precise ratios between them. The table covers sell orders, and depth can be asymmetric between the two sides of the book.

 

To check live conditions directly rather than relying on any report, view the BTC to USDT order book and trades on MEXC, where the book expands level by level.

 

 

For James Mitchell, the finding in this report most worth isolating is one that holds without citing any placing at all.

 

Depth measured at a wider band necessarily contains every order within the narrower band, so a 0.05% figure can never be smaller than a 0.03% figure. MEXC's July figure at the 0.05% band was $20.83 million; its September figure at the 0.03% band was $21.03 million. Depth measured within three basis points in September exceeded all the depth measured within five basis points in July. That is a comparison between two of MEXC's own readings, independent of any cross-venue ranking and therefore unaffected by how the sample was composed.

 

The slippage side rewards reading structurally. Median slippage on $1 million ETH futures sells fell from 0.015% to 0.008% while P90 fell from 0.022% to 0.013%, both down 40% to 50%. P90 interests me more than the median, for a direct reason: the median tells you what execution looks like when things go smoothly, P90 tells you what the worst of every ten looks like, and the second is where cost actually accumulates. A median improving alone would indicate depth thickening only in good conditions. Median and P90 improving together indicates the change is persistent.

 

On bands, one point is worth carrying away. Different firms' liquidity rankings often name different leaders, which reflects no fault in anyone's data. The 0.03% band is three basis points while ±1% is 100 basis points on each side, roughly 33 times wider. They measure two separate things: near-touch depth sets the immediate cost of small and mid-size orders, wide-band depth sets whether a large order can complete without disturbing the market.

 

Working out which applies requires nothing beyond the measured slippage in the report. A $100,000 BTC spot sell shows median impact of 0.004%, or 0.4 basis points. A $500,000 ETH futures sell shows 0.3 basis points. A $1 million BTC futures sell shows 0.9 basis points. From $100,000 to $1 million, price never travels a full basis point. For orders of that size the ±1% depth rankings are simply irrelevant, and what determines the cost is how much rests in the first few basis points.

 

At $1 million in ETH futures the P90 reaches 1.3 basis points and crosses into the 0.03% band. That transition point carries real reference value, because it shows where larger orders, or worse moments, start drawing on the second band's resting size. It is also why the 0.03% band deserves reading alongside the 0.01% band rather than on its own.

 

A closing note on precision. At magnitudes such as 0.003% these figures carry one significant digit, which is appropriate for judging the order of magnitude and the applicable band but not for computing precise ratios. A liquidity ranking carries meaning only when the band, the date and the instrument coverage are all stated together.

 

 

 

Per TokenInsight's September 2026 liquidity report, at the near-touch 0.03% band MEXC's combined BTC and ETH futures depth of $21.03 million was the deepest among the nine exchanges surveyed. In the same report MEXC's median slippage on a $500,000 BTC spot sell order was 0.005%, also the lowest median in the report.

 

 

The 0.03% band equals three basis points and measures the cumulative resting size within a very narrow window of the best bid and offer. That window determines the immediate execution cost of small and mid-size orders, because the price impact of such orders typically falls within the first few basis points. By comparison, the ±1% measure covers 100 basis points on each side, roughly 33 times wider, and measures total absorbable size before price moves a full percent.

 

 

Combined futures depth at the 0.03% band rose from $15.71 million to $21.03 million, up 33.9%. Spot depth at the 0.03% band rose from $1.76 million to $3.58 million, up 103.4%. Spot depth at the 0.01% band rose from $0.91 million to about $1.35 million, up roughly 48.4%. One internal comparison also applies: September's $21.03 million within the 0.03% band exceeds July's $20.83 million measured out to the wider 0.05% band, and depth at a wider band necessarily contains everything within the narrower one.

 

 

Median slippage on $500,000 ETH futures sells fell from 0.006% in July to 0.003% in September, down 50.0%, with P90 falling from 0.011% to 0.007%, down 36.4%. On $1 million sells the median fell from 0.015% to 0.008%, down 46.7%, with P90 falling from 0.022% to 0.013%, down 40.9%. Median slippage on $300,000 silver futures sells fell from 0.013% to 0.002%, down 84.6%.

 

 

Median slippage describes the typical case while P90 describes the worst of every ten executions. A median that falls while P90 stays flat indicates depth that thickens only in calm conditions and stays thin under stress, an intermittent improvement. Both falling together indicates the improvement holds in the tail of the distribution. MEXC's median and P90 each fell by roughly 40% to 50% across two ETH futures order sizes.

 

 

On the measured data, a $100,000 BTC spot sell shows median impact of 0.4 basis points, a $500,000 ETH futures sell 0.3 basis points and a $1 million BTC futures sell 0.9 basis points, all inside the 0.01% band. At $1 million in ETH futures the P90 reaches 1.3 basis points and enters the 0.03% band. Orders up to $1 million are therefore governed principally by the 0.01% and 0.03% near-touch bands, and only a single order large enough to push price toward a full percent makes wide-band depth the binding constraint.

 

 

Principally because the measurement bands differ. The 0.03% band is three basis points while ±1% is 100 basis points on each side, roughly 33 times wider, and the two measure near-touch resting size and total absorbable size before a full percent move respectively. Sample ranges, measurement periods and whether spot and futures are separated also vary between reports, so any ranking should be cited together with its band, date and instrument coverage.

 

 

Per the September report, MEXC's median slippage on a $300,000 silver futures sell was 0.002%, the lowest among all surveyed exchanges and down 84.6% from July's 0.013%. Combined gold and silver futures depth at the 0.01% band came to $2.39 million, within which silver depth led the market.

 

 

This article is for general information only and does not constitute investment, financial, legal or tax advice. Figures are current as of October 29, 2026, and the third-party reports cited use different measurement bands and periods that are not directly comparable. Order book depth and slippage change continuously with market conditions, historical snapshots do not represent current or future execution conditions, and crypto assets and leveraged products are highly volatile and can produce losses exceeding the initial outlay. Readers should verify exchanges' live data themselves and judge independently, consulting a qualified professional where appropriate.

 

 

James Mitchell specializes in technical analysis, market trends, and trading strategies for both Bitcoin and altcoins. Based in London, he has over 10 years of experience in financial markets. Before joining MEXC Learn, James worked as a senior analyst at a leading European investment firm, where he developed expertise in risk management and quantitative trading. His transition to cryptocurrency markets began in 2017, and he has since become recognized for his data-driven approach. He holds a Master's degree in Financial Economics from the London School of Economics. His analytical approach combines traditional technical analysis with on-chain metrics to provide readers with actionable insights.

 

Areas of Expertise: Technical Analysis, Market Trends and Cycles, Trading Strategies, Bitcoin and Altcoin Analysis, Risk Management.

 

 

 

Want the fastest access to MEXC's latest updates? Join our official Telegram group now!

MEXC Platform: Download App | Zero Fee Trading | Buy USDT Now

Join MEXC Community: X (Twitter) | Telegram | Discord

Get Insights: MEXC Learn | Terms of Service | MEXC Blog | MEXC News

Account Verification: Understand KYC | How to Complete KYC

External Content Platforms: Substack | Medium | Paragraph | LinkedIn | X(News)