The P/E ratio of LIT is 88 times, and HYPE is 43 times.

Written by: GLC Research

Translated by: Chopper, Foresight News

Hyperliquid and Lighter are two projects commonly compared for income and valuation in the market. However, most comparisons lack strong reference due to both sides choosing data that favors their arguments: one side uses circulating supply, while the other uses fully diluted supply; one counts transaction fees, while the other counts net profit; or compares weekly income data to annual data.

This article applies a unified measurement standard for both tokens. The token supply uses the framework established by HSI and HRC (Note: HRC is the Hyperliquid Research Alliance, initiated by institutions such as Four Pillars and GLC Research; HSI is a publicly listed company focusing on the Hyperliquid ecosystem and is one of the largest holders of HYPE in the market), and the profit data uses September 2026 monthly data annualized. This article does not provide any bullish or bearish judgment on the tokens; its purpose is merely to show the valuation levels of the two projects when the definitions are entirely consistent.

Results: 43 times vs 88 times

Under a unified metric, Lighter's P/E ratio is approximately 2 times that of Hyperliquid, with values of 88.1 times and 43.3 times, respectively.

The P/E ratio here is calculated by dividing the OTS valuation by annualized profit, where annualized profit equals September 2026 profit multiplied by 12.

Supply: Outstanding Token Supply (OTS)

This valuation entirely adopts the OTS metric. OTS accounts for tokens that are already in circulation or distributed to specified holders according to a publicly fixed schedule, lying between circulating supply and fully diluted supply, and is the closest equivalent concept to market capitalization.

Both tokens use exactly the same statistical rules:

• Included: Circulating tokens plus team and investor allocation shares (fully included even if still locked)
• Excluded: Reserve tokens, such as tokens to be released in the future, community rewards, ecological reserves
• Deducted: Tokens that have been destroyed or repurchased and canceled according to buyback policies

According to hl.eco data, Hyperliquid's OTS valuation is 43 billion USD.

The Lighter token distribution plan comes from team tweets: 50% ecological share (half distributed during launch via airdrop), 26% team share, 24% investor share. The team and investor tokens have a 1-year lock-up period, followed by a 3-year linear unlock.

Based on the price of LIT at 3.896 USD on October 6, 2026, Lighter's OTS valuation is 2.85 billion USD. According to team disclosures, Lighter has repurchased 18.15 million LIT since launch and destroyed the repurchased tokens. Some of the destruction is yet to be executed, but this calculation has fully deducted it; similar to how HYPE held by the Hyperliquid rescue fund is directly deducted upon buyback.

Both tokens have undergone the same simplified treatment, with staking rewards and incentives already issued from ecological reserves not counted in OTS. This portion is relatively small compared to the total supply, and this treatment aligns with the statistical criteria for future token releases and community rewards for HYPE.

Profit: Unified use of the same month’s data

The profit data for both projects is taken from September 2026, annualized by multiplying by 12. A natural month is chosen because Lighter discloses buyback data monthly.

Hyperliquid’s profit metric follows the financial framework constructed by hl.eco and HRC.

Revenue = Transaction fees after deducting developer and deployer shares + priority fees + HyperEVM Gas fees + auction destruction profits + USDC reserve interest.

Profit = Revenue - Fees shared with HLP.

September's revenue was 83.5 million USD, with a profit of 82.8 million USD, resulting in annualized profit of 994 million USD. No team or shareholders take a share from this, and profits will be returned to HYPE holders through buybacks and destruction.

Lighter has not directly disclosed profit data, and this article uses the buyback amount as the closest substitute indicator. According to the team, Lighter's total revenue in September was 4.44 million USD, with 597,200 LIT repurchased. The average price that month was 4.52 USD, corresponding to a buyback amount of 2.7 million USD, annualized 32.4 million USD.

The buyback scale in September is nearly equivalent to the 2.72 million USD revenue generated by Lighter’s core business, with the remaining 1.72 million USD revenue coming from the Robinhood Chain business.

Conclusion boundaries: What can be inferred and what cannot

This comparison only indicates that, under the current annualized profit, the market pays approximately twice the valuation for each 1 USD profit of Lighter compared to Hyperliquid.

However, this does not imply that a particular token's pricing is wrong. The P/E ratio reflects market expectations for growth, profit margins, and risk; single-month profit data cannot encompass these factors. A higher P/E ratio can be supported by higher expected growth rates; a lower P/E ratio often corresponds to a larger, more mature profit base. The research team has its own views on this, but this article does not make related judgments, merely showcasing the valuation multiples based on September data.

This article also has three limitations to note:

• Lighter's profit is an approximate assumption, and the buyback amount is only a substitute indicator. If Lighter retains part of its income (e.g., Robinhood Chain fees), its actual profit would be higher, and the P/E ratio would be lower. If total revenue instead of buyback amount is used for calculation, the P/E ratio would be about 54 times.
• The sample window is very short: Both protocols use data from September for annualization, maintaining a consistent comparison metric, but single-month performance may be above or below long-term trends.
• Reserve distributions are not included in statistics: The ecological reserve rewards already issued for both tokens are not accounted for in OTS. If included, both valuations would see a slight uplift.