GLC Research said a like-for-like comparison between Hyperliquid and Lighter puts Lighter’s valuation at roughly twice Hyperliquid’s on a price-to-earnings basis. Using the framework laid out in the report, LIT trades at 88.1x annualized earnings, versus 43.3x for HYPE.
The report says the two protocols are often compared on revenue and valuation, but many of those comparisons are not very useful because they rely on different definitions. In some cases, one side uses circulating supply while the other uses fully diluted supply. In others, one metric is fees and the other is net profit, or a single week of revenue is set against a full year. The purpose here, the authors wrote, was not to make a bullish or bearish call on either token, but to show how the valuation picture looks when both are measured the same way.
P/E result under one methodology
In the report, price-to-earnings is defined as OTS valuation divided by annualized earnings, with annualized earnings equal to September 2026 earnings multiplied by 12. On that basis, Hyperliquid comes out at 43.3x and Lighter at 88.1x.
Valuation method: outstanding token supply
Both tokens were valued using OTS, or outstanding token supply. The report describes OTS as a middle ground between circulating supply and fully diluted supply. It includes tokens already in circulation, as well as tokens allocated to specific holders on a public fixed schedule, making it closer to an equity-style market capitalization concept.
The same rules were applied to both assets:
- Include circulating tokens and allocations to team members and investors, even if those tokens are still locked.
- Exclude reserve tokens such as future emissions, community rewards, and ecosystem reserves.
- Deduct burned tokens and tokens repurchased and retired under a buyback policy.
Based on hl.eco data, Hyperliquid’s OTS valuation was set at $43 billion.
For Lighter, the token allocation came from a team post: 50% for the ecosystem, with half of that distributed as an airdrop at launch, 26% for the team, and 24% for investors. Team and investor tokens are subject to a one-year lockup, followed by linear unlocks over three years.
Using a LIT price of $3.896 on Oct. 6, 2026, the report calculated Lighter’s OTS valuation at $2.85 billion. The team has disclosed that Lighter has repurchased 18.15 million LIT since launch and intends to burn those tokens. The report says some of that burn had not yet been executed, but the full amount was deducted in the calculation. It says that treatment matches the way HYPE held by the Hyperliquid assistance fund is handled, where repurchased tokens are deducted once bought back.
The report also applies one simplification to both tokens: staking rewards and incentives already distributed from ecosystem reserves are not counted in OTS. It says the amount is small relative to total supply and that the treatment is consistent with how future HYPE emissions and community rewards are handled.
Earnings method: September 2026 annualized
For earnings, both protocols were measured using September 2026 data and then annualized by multiplying by 12. The report says a calendar month was chosen because Lighter discloses buyback data on a monthly basis.
Hyperliquid’s profit framework follows the financial model built by hl.eco and HRC. Revenue includes trading fees after developer and deployer revenue shares, priority fees, HyperEVM gas fees, auction burn proceeds, and interest on USDC reserves. Profit is defined as revenue minus fee sharing paid to HLP.
Under that framework, Hyperliquid recorded $83.5 million in revenue and $82.8 million in profit in September, implying annualized profit of $994 million. The report says no team members or shareholders take a cut, and that profit is returned to HYPE holders through buybacks and burns.
Lighter does not directly disclose profit, so the report uses buyback value as the closest available proxy. According to team disclosures, Lighter generated $4.44 million in total revenue in September and repurchased 597,200 LIT. At an average monthly price of $4.52, that implies about $2.7 million in buybacks, or $32.4 million on an annualized basis.
The report adds that the September buyback amount was almost equal to the $2.72 million generated by Lighter’s core business, while the remaining $1.72 million in revenue came from Robinhood Chain operations.
What the comparison does and does not show
GLC Research says the exercise shows that, at current annualized earnings, the market is paying about twice as much for each dollar of Lighter earnings as it is for each dollar of Hyperliquid earnings.
It also says that does not mean either token is mispriced. A P/E multiple reflects expectations around growth, margins, and risk, and a single month of earnings cannot capture all of that. A higher multiple may be supported by stronger expected growth, while a lower multiple often comes with a larger and more mature earnings base. The authors say they have their own views on those questions, but this piece is limited to showing the valuation multiples implied by September data.
Three limits highlighted in the report
- Lighter’s earnings figure is an approximation because buybacks are only a proxy. If Lighter retained part of its revenue, including Robinhood Chain fees, true earnings would be higher and the P/E lower. Using total revenue instead of buybacks would put the multiple at about 54x.
- The sample window is short. Both protocols are measured using one month of data annualized, which keeps the comparison consistent but may not reflect a longer-term trend.
- Distributed reserve incentives are excluded from OTS. If those were included, valuations for both tokens would rise modestly.
The piece was written by GLC Research and translated by Chopper for Foresight News, with TechFlowPost listed as the source.