On the standard, publicly posted fee schedules, OKX’s spot maker fee is cheaper than Bybit’s: 0.08% against 0.10%. On a $1,000 trade that works out to $0.80 on OKX — a figure CoinMarketBox calculated directly in its 3 April 2026 guide — against $1.00 on Bybit’s 0.10% maker rate, a figure this page derives by applying the same arithmetic to Bybit’s published rate, since no source reviewed ran that calculation for Bybit specifically. Taker fees are identical at 0.10% on both exchanges, so a $1,000 market order costs the same $1.00 either way. That answers the fee half of the question. It does not answer the spread half: two of the four sources reviewed here name the bid-ask spread as a real cost that sits outside the fee schedule, but none of the four puts a number on it for either exchange, and for a market order that spread is often what decides the real cost of a trade.
The posted fee schedules, side by side
Four independent fee-comparison outlets — Yieldo (published 27 March 2026, updated 29 March 2026), DataWallet (last updated 7 June 2026), Coin Bureau (last updated 26 June 2026) and CoinMarketBox (published 3 April 2026) — report matching standard-tier numbers for spot trading: OKX at 0.08% maker and 0.10% taker, Bybit at 0.10% maker and 0.10% taker. On futures, Yieldo, DataWallet and Coin Bureau all report OKX at 0.02% maker and 0.05% taker against Bybit’s 0.02% maker and 0.055% taker; CoinMarketBox independently confirms the OKX side of that pair.
| Product | Bybit | OKX |
|---|---|---|
| Spot maker | 0.10% | 0.08% |
| Spot taker | 0.10% | 0.10% |
| Futures maker | 0.02% | 0.02% |
| Futures taker | 0.055% | 0.05% |
These are the standard, non-VIP retail rates as relayed by the four sites above from each exchange’s own fee page. None of the four is a primary exchange filing; all four are secondary readings of the same public schedule.
What a $1,000 spot trade actually costs
CoinMarketBox ran the arithmetic directly for OKX in its 3 April 2026 guide: on a $1,000 trade, the maker fee is $0.80 and the taker fee is $1.00. No source reviewed here ran the equivalent calculation for Bybit. This page’s own arithmetic, applying Bybit’s published 0.10% maker rate to the same $1,000 trade, produces $1.00 — the same result as OKX’s taker fee, because the two rates happen to be identical. That $1.00 Bybit figure is this publication’s calculation, not one published by CoinMarketBox or any other source for Bybit specifically. In practice, a $1,000 limit order that adds liquidity costs $0.80 on OKX (per CoinMarketBox) and $1.00 on Bybit (by this page’s arithmetic on Bybit’s published rate); a $1,000 market order that takes liquidity costs $1.00 on either exchange, since both taker rates are 0.10%.
A bigger trade: Yieldo’s worked example
Yieldo, in its 29 March 2026 comparison, ran the same maker-fee gap on a $10,000 trade: $8 on OKX against $10 on Bybit. Yieldo frames OKX’s 0.08% rate as “20% less” than Bybit’s 0.10%, and extends the arithmetic to a trader placing 20 such trades a month, for a claimed saving of $40 a month on OKX. This is Yieldo’s own illustrative calculation, not a figure published by either exchange, and it does not appear in the other three sources reviewed here.
Futures: a 0.005 percentage-point gap
On futures, maker rates are identical at 0.02% on both exchanges, so the only difference is on the taker side: OKX at 0.05% against Bybit at 0.055%, what Yieldo calls “a 0.005% gap.” Yieldo translates that into a monthly cost for a trader doing $50,000 in taker volume: $27.50 on Bybit against $25.00 on OKX, extrapolated by Yieldo to a $30-a-year difference. This is Yieldo’s own arithmetic on a hypothetical trader, dated 29 March 2026, and it is not corroborated by the other three sources, which report the rate gap but do not run the dollar figures.
Why the fee schedule doesn’t settle “which is cheaper”
Two things get lost when a fee table is treated as the whole answer. First, the maker rate — where OKX has its clearest edge on spot — only applies to limit orders that sit on the book and add liquidity. A market order, placed to execute immediately at the best available price rather than wait on the book, pays the taker rate instead, and the taker rate is identical at 0.10% on spot and separated by only 0.005 percentage points on futures. Second, there is a gap neither of these sources closes with an actual number: CoinMarketBox’s own guide lists spread among the “hidden” costs it says traders overlook, and Coin Bureau’s stated methodology names spread as one link in what it calls the fee stack — trading fee, spread, funding rate, withdrawal fee, card/on-ramp fee and any P2P premium — while separately noting that a trader’s real cost on either exchange changes by region, product, asset, payment method and VIP tier. Naming spread as a factor is not the same as measuring it. Neither CoinMarketBox nor Coin Bureau publishes a spread figure for OKX or Bybit, and Yieldo and DataWallet do not raise the concept at all in the material reviewed here. Given that the entire taker-fee gap on futures is 0.005 percentage points, it would take very little difference in spread between the two order books to erase that gap or reverse it. This page cannot say whether that happens, because no source reviewed puts a number on it.
Discount programs that change the effective rate
Both exchanges publish schemes that move a trader off the standard-tier numbers above. Yieldo’s 29 March 2026 review describes OKX’s discount as tied to holding its native OKB token, with a stated reduction of up to 40% — a figure that appears only in Yieldo among the sources reviewed here. CoinMarketBox’s 3 April 2026 guide confirms that holding OKB reduces fees and lists it as a way to cut costs, without stating a percentage. Bybit, per Yieldo, runs a volume-and-asset-based VIP tier system running from VIP 1 up to a top tier Yieldo calls “Supreme VIP,” at which maker fees can potentially drop to 0%; Yieldo describes the entry thresholds as steep, requiring significant monthly volume or a large asset balance. Whether OKX’s 40% OKB discount and Bybit’s top-tier maker rebate apply at comparable trade sizes or account balances is not established by any source held for this review, so the two discount paths cannot be compared like-for-like.
What this page does not tell you
This page compares published maker/taker fee schedules, and the specific dollar examples that Yieldo and CoinMarketBox ran against those schedules. It does not compare the bid-ask spread on OKX and Bybit with any figure. CoinMarketBox and Coin Bureau both name spread as a cost that sits outside the fee schedule, but neither one, nor Yieldo, nor DataWallet, quantifies it for either exchange. For a market order — an order that executes immediately at the best available price, as distinct from a limit order that waits on the book — the fee gap between these two exchanges is at most a few thousandths of a percentage point; a wider or narrower spread on one exchange’s order book, in either direction, could matter more than the fee difference shown above, and this page has no data to say which way that cuts.
The figures above are standard, non-VIP retail rates. Actual cost for any given trader also depends on OKB holdings, VIP tier, account region and the specific fee-page version live on the day of the trade — variables that change over time and are not tracked in real time here. The 40% OKB discount figure and the description of Bybit’s VIP ladder reaching a 0% maker rate at its top tier come from a single outlet, Yieldo, and are not corroborated by the other three sources reviewed.
Three of the four fee-comparison sources cited here disclose a financial stake in the exchanges they compare: Yieldo, DataWallet and Coin Bureau each carry an explicit affiliate disclaimer stating they may earn a commission when a reader signs up through their links. CoinMarketBox’s article, as reviewed for this page, carries promotional links reading “Join OKX Now” but no explicit affiliate disclosure statement in the text held. That distinction does not make any of the four outlets’ fee-schedule numbers wrong; where several independently report the same percentage, that agreement is worth something. But the financial incentive on the three that disclose it is worth naming, particularly on sections — like the OKB discount claim — where only one of the four provides a figure.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
