Compare
BY Bybit VS LN Luno
Both exchanges offer Spot. The differences below come from our individual reviews of Bybit and Luno.
| Bybit | Luno | |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2018 | 2013 |
| Regions | Widely available; restricted or unavailable in some jurisdictions including the US for derivatives products: verify local availability before signing up. | Strong presence across South Africa, Nigeria, and other African markets, plus Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore in Southeast Asia; also serves UK and EU users, though some UK services have been curtailed to meet FCA requirements. Availability and local payment rails vary significantly by country. |
| Products | Spot, Perpetual futures, Options, Copy trading | Spot |
| Maker fee | Verify current tier: Bybit uses a volume-based maker/taker schedule | Verify current tier: Luno uses a volume-based maker/taker schedule, historically starting around 0.1% maker and 0.25% taker at the base tier |
| Taker fee | Verify current tier: Bybit uses a volume-based maker/taker schedule | Verify current tier: Luno uses a volume-based maker/taker schedule, historically starting around 0.1% maker and 0.25% taker at the base tier |
Bybit pros
- Deep futures liquidity, especially on major pairs
- Mature, well-documented copy-trading product
- Fast account setup for spot and futures
Luno pros
- Genuine focus on markets (South Africa, Nigeria, Malaysia, Indonesia, and more) that most major exchanges support poorly or not at all
- Local payment rail support and market knowledge built from operating in these regions for over a decade
- Monthly proof-of-reserves reporting with an independent accounting firm and over 98% of funds in offline, multi-signature cold storage
- No major hack or customer-fund loss on record since founding in 2013
This table is generated from the same data behind our individual exchange reviews. See methodology for how it's put together. Fee figures marked "not yet verified" need confirming against live terms before this page is treated as launch-ready.