Compare the exact VALR futures or Perps product with the exact Bybit perpetual contract. VALR's own-venue futures documentation and its third-party Perps product describe different execution arrangements. Combining their fees and margin rules into one “VALR futures” row would mislead readers.
Bybit also has different contract types and margin modes. A fee comparison is incomplete until the contract, collateral, execution venue and South African account eligibility are identified. The comparison below covers documented mechanics and modelled costs, not a finding of account eligibility.
Start with a product-level fact sheet
| Field | VALR own-venue futures documentation | VALR third-party Perps | Bybit perpetual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Execution basis | VALR platform provisions | Technical guide names Hyperliquid infrastructure | Identify the chosen Bybit contract and account terms |
| Funding rules | Own-venue guide describes hourly payments | Relevant execution infrastructure determines rules | Contract interval can vary and change |
| Margin/liquidation | Applicable VALR futures provisions | Infrastructure rules can replace corresponding provisions | Depends on contract and margin mode |
| Fee evidence | Futures row in VALR schedule | Separate Perps charges and third-party fees | Applicable VIP tier and contract fee schedule |
| Account eligibility evidence | Account terms and product scope needed | Account terms, product scope and venue needed | Residence, entity and contract terms needed |
VALR's futures terms name VALR DAM as the service provider, while the Perps technical guide identifies third-party execution infrastructure. This is a description of the provider's documents, not independent confirmation of regulatory scope. Identify the entity and execution venue in the terms applying to your chosen contract.
Compare fees without mixing products
At the verification date, VALR's general schedule lists its first-tier futures maker/taker rates as 0.03% and 0.07%. Its separate Perps product has additional product-specific charges; do not substitute the first-tier futures row for that product.
Bybit's general fee guide lists non-VIP perpetual/futures maker/taker rates of 0.02% and 0.055%. Actual account rates and product applicability need confirmation. An order described as a limit order is not necessarily a maker fill if it executes immediately against resting liquidity.
These rates concern trading, not all holding costs. Funding, collateral conversion, transfers and any activation or third-party charges need separate treatment. Current fee evidence is not a liquidity measurement.
A matched holding-cost example
Assume hypothetical linear positions of 10,000 quote-currency units each: USDC for the VALR model and USDT for the Bybit model. Both are entered and exited at unchanged notional as taker fills. Apply the cited general tier rates only to their corresponding products. Exclude third-party VALR Perps from this calculation because its cost structure differs.
| Calculation | VALR own-venue rate model | Bybit non-VIP rate model |
|---|---|---|
| Entry fee | 10,000 × 0.07% = 7 USDC | 10,000 × 0.055% = 5.5 USDT |
| Exit fee at unchanged notional | 7 USDC | 5.5 USDT |
| Round-trip trading fees | 14 USDC | 11 USDT |
| Hypothetical holding funding | 3 USDC | 5 USDT |
| Modelled total | 17 USDC | 16 USDT |
Assuming both one USDC and one USDT are worth R18 solely for the comparison, these totals equal R306 and R288. The tokens are not interchangeable and their actual rand prices can differ. The funding inputs and conversion rate are invented assumptions, not live quotes. Different execution, funding or closing notional could reverse the result. The table does not demonstrate that a trade is available to you.
Collateral can change the risk
Read which assets count as collateral and at what weight. A token held as collateral can fall in value while the derivative position loses money. An account can also convert collateral to cover a settlement-currency shortfall under its terms.
Compare isolated and cross-margin settings, automatic top-ups, maintenance tiers and the mark-price calculation. Do not estimate liquidation from leverage alone. The same initial margin amount can behave differently when other positions and shared balances are involved.
Measure liquidity instead of asserting it
No live order-book study was performed for this comparison. There is therefore no claim that either product has deeper liquidity or better fills. A useful study would record contract, UTC timestamp, bid/ask spread and executable depth at several matched sizes, then repeat across market conditions without placing unnecessary trades.
Keep slippage estimates separate from published fees. A cheaper taker rate can be outweighed by worse execution at your size, but that needs evidence rather than an assumed ranking.
For provider context use the exchange hub; for asset custody and rand exits use the wallet hub and cash-out hub. Before acting on a lower modelled cost, check the actual contract, eligible account, collateral currency and current quote. If those do not match, the comparison must be recalculated before it can inform your decision.
Sources and verification
Primary sources checked on 20 September 2026. Prices, availability and processing arrangements can change.