Key points

  • CoinGecko measured Ether’s median depth at $13 million to $14 million near the market price, equal to about 35% to 45% of Bitcoin’s liquidity in a comparable range.
  • Ether gained roughly 70% in the third quarter versus about 42% for Bitcoin, showing that a strong price move does not automatically produce deeper order books.
  • Seven of the eight exchanges studied still maintained more than $1 million of Ether depth on each side, so the result signals weaker relative resilience rather than an illiquid market.

Ether’s stronger third-quarter rally did not bring a comparable improvement in the liquidity available close to its market price. CoinGecko’s 2026 study of centralized exchanges put median Ether order-book depth at $13 million to $14 million around a 0.15% price range. That was only about 35% to 45% of Bitcoin’s depth in a comparable band, down from at least 60% in CoinGecko’s 2025 study. CoinDesk highlighted the contrast on October 5 after Ether gained roughly 70% during the quarter, compared with about 42% for Bitcoin.

What the depth figures measure

Market depth counts the value of resting buy and sell orders near an asset’s current price. A deeper book can absorb a larger trade before that order pushes the price materially higher or lower; a thinner book generally implies more slippage for the same transaction. CoinGecko examined eight centralized exchanges and compared narrow price bands, using about plus or minus $3 for Ether and plus or minus $100 for Bitcoin. The metric is different from reported trading volume, which records completed transactions rather than the capital currently available to fill the next order.

Related reporting: Crypto ETP outflows deepen over holidays as investors stay selective into year-end

Ether’s rally did not deepen its book

The finding challenges the simple assumption that higher prices automatically attract enough market makers and orders to improve execution. Ether rose faster than Bitcoin in the quarter, yet its relative depth deteriorated from the prior year. CoinGecko still described Ether as fairly liquid: seven of the eight exchanges maintained more than $1 million on both sides of the book within the measured range. MEXC was the exception at roughly $450,000. Binance provided the deepest Ether market near the quoted price, followed by Bitget and OKX.

Bitcoin’s liquidity moved the other way

Across the same group of exchanges, Bitcoin had median cumulative depth of about $29 million on the buy side and $37 million on the sell side. CoinGecko said that represented an increase of almost 50% from its 2025 comparison. Binance accounted for 25.3% of the measured Bitcoin liquidity, with $7.3 million in bids and $8.3 million in asks inside the study’s narrow range. The divergence suggests Bitcoin’s market structure strengthened while Ether’s price performance improved for reasons that did not translate into equally robust order books.

The pattern extends beyond Ether

CoinGecko also found shallower liquidity in Solana’s SOL. Median depth fell from about $28 million on each side in 2025 to roughly $20 million in 2026, a decline of more than 28.5%. XRP’s profile was different: total depth near the study’s 2% range remained around $30 million, but bids of almost $18 million exceeded asks of about $14 million. The report noted that XRP had a market capitalization about 40% larger than SOL’s while SOL still generated roughly 25% more average daily trading volume, another reminder that market size alone does not determine execution quality.

What traders and institutions should infer

The results describe median liquidity across selected centralized venues, not every place where these assets trade. They do not capture decentralized exchanges, over-the-counter transactions or the full variation within individual days. Order books can also change rapidly during news events or volatility. Even so, the comparison matters for funds, market makers and other large users because available depth affects execution costs and the size of trades a market can absorb. Ether’s quarterly return shows demand for the asset; its thinner relative book shows that price momentum and trading resilience are separate questions.

Sources

AI-generated editorial image; not a photograph of the reported event. Prepared with AI assistance and source verification.