onchaingreeks

Derive Execution Quality

Real slippage from every executed trade, by route (RFQ vs order book), size, strike and expiry.

Asset
Jan 2026 → Nov 202686,077 executions · Derive
Total Notional
$10.42B
86,077 executions
RFQ Share
70%
of notional · 28% of fills
Median Slippage
3.1%vs 5.4%
RFQ vs order book
Avg Fill Size
$306Kvs $51K
RFQ vs order book
Price Improvement
29%
of RFQ fills beat fair value
RFQorder book

BTC options · cheapest way to trade by size and strike

Best route (lowest median slippage) for each trade size (notional volume) × moneyness (strike ÷ spot)
Notional ＼ Moneyness<0.850.85–0.950.95–1.05 (ATM)1.05–1.2>1.2
<$5k
2.8%
RFQ
2.7%
RFQ
3.0%
RFQ
3.0%
RFQ
5.2%
RFQ
$5–25k
2.3%
RFQ
2.4%
RFQ
2.8%
RFQ
2.8%
RFQ
4.2%
RFQ
$25–100k
6.1%
RFQ
2.8%
RFQ
2.7%
RFQ
3.6%
RFQ
6.0%
RFQ
$100–500k
4.8%
RFQ
5.5%
RFQ
3.8%
RFQ
3.9%
RFQ
6.9%
RFQ
$500k–1m
6.7%
RFQ
10.2%
RFQ
4.3%
RFQ
6.9%
RFQ
4.0%
OB
>$1m
9.0%
RFQ
2.5%
RFQ
2.7%
RFQ
4.4%
RFQ
8.4%
RFQ

Read a cell as: “for a trade of this size on a strike this far from spot, you’d have been filled cheapest via this route, at this slippage.” Brighter = tighter. Cells need ≥8 fills to show.

Options notional

USD options notional per week · RFQ + order book
$0$175M$350M$525M$700MDec 29Feb 9Mar 23May 4Jun 15Jul 27Sep 7Oct 19

Slippage breakdown

Size = notional volume (contracts × spot) · best execution path per bucket

Source: reconstructed from Derive's public trade tape, per asset and updated continuously. Slippage = (execution price − mark) ÷ mark.