Comparison
StonkFun vs Pump.fun
Both are Solana launch platforms, but they differ at the most basic level: what a new token trades against, and how its market is created.
Reviewed and updated 2026-09-15
Short answer
Pump.fun launches start on a bonding curve priced in SOL and graduate into a PumpSwap pool. StonkFun skips the curve: it mints a fixed supply and opens a one-sided Raydium market quoted against an asset you choose, which can be a tokenized stock rather than SOL. That choice is the whole difference — everything else follows from it.
Side by side
| Dimension | StonkFun | Pump.fun |
|---|---|---|
| Launch mechanism | Fixed 1 billion supply, one-sided Raydium market opened at launch | Bonding curve (constant-product) that graduates to a PumpSwap pool |
| Quote asset | Choose one: xStocks, PreStocks, Tessera, Sunrise, currencies, leverage tokens, collectibles, SOL or a custom mint | SOL |
| Cost to create | A launch cost quoted live in the form, paid in SOL | 0 SOL to create; 0.015 SOL when a coin graduates to PumpSwap |
| Trading fee | 1% or 2% pool, chosen at launch | A dynamic fee that varies with the coin's market cap, plus creator and LP components |
| Creator earnings | 0.5% per trade on a 1% pool, 1.5% on a 2% pool; claimed from the token page or API | A creator fee share on every swap, paid to a creator vault |
| Holder rewards | Optional reward mode: 1% or 3% transfer tax paid to holders in the quote token | Unknown / not verified |
| Liquidity handling | Stated as permanently locked via Raydium Burn & Earn | Curve reserves migrate into a PumpSwap pool on graduation |
| Platform token | STONK, with ~60% of platform revenue stated as buy-and-burn | Unknown / not verified |
| Public API | Open, no API key; read data and launch programmatically | Public program documentation on GitHub; interface APIs are separate |
| Discovery tools | Board sortable by market cap, newest and 24h volume, filterable by quote category | Board with live activity feeds and its own sorting |
Why cells are marked unknown
Fee schedules on both platforms change through program upgrades. Where a number would need to be current to be useful and we could not confirm it on the platform's own documentation at the time of review, we left it unverified instead of copying a figure from a secondary article.
Which model suits what
- Pairing against an equity only exists on StonkFun. It makes a token's quoted price move relative to that stock, which is a narrative device and a real exposure change, not a claim on the company.
- Bonding curves give early buyers a deterministic, mechanically rising price and a familiar graduation moment. A one-sided pool at a fixed starting market cap behaves differently from the first trade onward.
- Fee predictability favours StonkFun's two flat tiers if you are a creator modelling revenue; a market-cap-linked dynamic fee is harder to forecast.
- Liquidity and attention favour the larger venue. Neither model compensates for a market nobody trades.
Is one safer than the other?
Both are permissionless: anyone can launch anything. Platform mechanics do not screen for quality, and most launches on any launchpad fail.
Can I launch the same token on both?
You would be creating two separate mints with separate liquidity, which splits your market. Pick one venue per token.
Sources and verification
Checked 2026-09-15.