GLC Research published a side-by-side valuation comparison of Hyperliquid and Lighter, two derivatives protocols that are often discussed together on revenue and valuation. The report argues that many existing comparisons are not very useful because they rely on mismatched definitions, such as circulating supply for one token and fully diluted supply for the other, fees for one protocol and net profit for the other, or a single week of data against a full-year figure.
To remove that mismatch, the analysis applies one framework to both projects. Token supply is measured with the framework set by HSI and HRC, while earnings are based on September 2026 data and annualized. The report says its goal is not to make a bullish or bearish call on either token, but to show how the two valuations look when the definitions are aligned.
Lighter at 88.1x, Hyperliquid at 43.3x
Using that common framework, the report puts Lighter’s price-to-earnings ratio at about twice Hyperliquid’s. The figures are 88.1x for Lighter and 43.3x for Hyperliquid.
In the report, P/E is calculated by dividing OTS valuation by annualized earnings. Annualized earnings are defined as September 2026 earnings multiplied by 12.
Both tokens are measured with OTS supply
The valuation work uses OTS, or outstanding token supply, across both assets. The report describes OTS as a measure that includes tokens already in circulation as well as tokens assigned to specific holders on a public fixed schedule. It places that definition between circulating supply and fully diluted supply, and says it is the closest equivalent to equity market capitalization.
The same rules are applied to both tokens:
- include circulating tokens and allocations to teams and investors, even if they are still locked;
- exclude reserve tokens, including future emissions, community rewards and ecosystem reserves;
- subtract burned tokens and tokens repurchased and retired under buyback policies.
Based on data from hl.eco, Hyperliquid’s OTS valuation is $43 billion.
For Lighter, the token allocation comes from a team post. The breakdown is 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 three years of linear unlocks.
Using an Oct. 6, 2026 LIT price of $3.896, the report calculates Lighter’s OTS valuation at $2.85 billion. According to team disclosures, Lighter has repurchased 18.15 million LIT since launch and plans to burn the repurchased tokens. The report says some of those burns were still pending execution, but the full amount was subtracted in this calculation. It says that treatment matches the handling of HYPE repurchases held by the Hyperliquid assistance fund.
The analysis also applies one simplification to both tokens: staking rewards and incentives already distributed from ecosystem reserves are not included in OTS. The report says that amount is small relative to total supply and that the treatment is consistent with how future HYPE emissions and community rewards are handled.
September 2026 is used for earnings on both sides
For earnings, the report uses September 2026 for both protocols and multiplies the monthly figure by 12. It says a calendar month was chosen because Lighter discloses buyback data on a monthly basis.
Hyperliquid’s profit definition follows the financial framework built by hl.eco and HRC.
Revenue includes trading fees after developer and deployer revenue sharing, 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 posted $83.5 million in September revenue, $82.8 million in profit and $994 million in annualized profit. The report says no team or shareholders take a cut, and 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 buyback activity equals about $2.7 million, or $32.4 million on an annualized basis.
The report adds that the September buyback was almost equal to the $2.72 million in revenue generated by Lighter’s core business, while the remaining $1.72 million in revenue came from Robinhood Chain business.
What the comparison shows, and what it does not
The main conclusion is narrow. At current annualized earnings, the market is paying roughly twice as much for each $1 of Lighter earnings as it is for each $1 of Hyperliquid earnings.
The report also says that does not mean either token is mispriced. P/E reflects market expectations for growth, margins and risk, and a single month of earnings cannot capture all of those variables. A higher multiple can be supported by faster expected growth, while a lower multiple often comes with a larger and more mature earnings base. The research team says it has views on those questions, but this piece does not offer a judgment and sticks to the September data.
Three limitations flagged in the report
The report lists three caveats.
- Lighter’s profit is an approximation, with buyback value used as a substitute. If Lighter retains part of its revenue, such as Robinhood Chain fees, true profit would be higher and its P/E would be lower. If total revenue is used instead of buybacks, the P/E would be about 54x.
- The sample window is short. Both protocols are annualized from September data, which keeps the comparison consistent but may not reflect a longer-term trend.
- Distributed reserve rewards are excluded. Already-issued ecosystem reserve rewards for both tokens are not included in OTS, and including them would push valuations modestly higher for both assets.
The piece was written by GLC Research and translated by Chopper for Foresight News. Its focus is methodological consistency: one supply definition, one earnings window, and one valuation lens for both protocols.