Perpetual futures and traditional futures are both derivative instruments whose value is tied to an underlying asset. However, one key difference, the absence of an expiry date, can make perpetual futures more attractive to some traders, while others may prefer the defined timelines of traditional futures, depending on their trading strategies and risk appetite.

As the name suggests, perpetual futures have no fixed expiry date, unlike traditional futures contracts, which expire on a specified date. The distinction matters because it affects how long traders can hold a position, the costs they incur while holding it, and the actions they must take to maintain their market exposure.

This guide walks you through how perpetual and traditional futures differ and what those differences mean for traders.

Traditional Futures Contracts: How they Work

Futures contracts are standardized, legally binding agreements traded on regulated exchanges to buy or sell an underlying asset at a predetermined price, with settlement scheduled for a specified future date.

• Standardized terms: The exchange defines the contract’s quality, quantity, delivery date, and delivery location, where applicable. The contract price fluctuates based on market supply and demand.
• Margin and leverage: Traders do not pay the full contract value upfront. Instead, they deposit an initial margin, a fraction of the contract’s value. This leverage magnifies both potential gains and potential losses. -** Obligations and early exit:** Both buyers and sellers are bound by contract’s terms. However, they can typically exit before expiry by taking an offsetting position or extend their exposure by rolling over the contract into a later expiry.
• Settlement at expiry: Depending on the contract specifications, settlement occurs either through physical delivery of the underlying asset or through a cash payment based on the contract’s final settlement price.

The exchange sets the minimum initial and maintenance margin requirements for each futures contract based on its risk profile, including price volatility and potential losses. Initial margin is the amount a trader must deposit to open a position, while maintenance margin is the minimum account equity required to keep it open. Brokers may impose higher margin requirements, and these can change as market conditions evolve. Since futures trading involves leverage, traders should maintain sufficient funds to cover potential losses and avoid forced liquidation.

Consider two futures contracts traded on CME Group: the E-mini S&P 500 futures (ES) and the WTI Crude Oil futures (CL). They illustrate how futures contracts work and how their settlement mechanisms differ.

Looking for reliable resources to learn about futures trading? Explore this directory of futures traders and trading educators to discover their strategies, trading styles, and educational content.

E-mini S&P 500 futures (ES)

The ES contract tracks the S&P 500 Index and has a contract multiplier of $50 per index point. If the futures price is 7,700 points, the contract's notional value is $385,000 (7,700 × $50). However, a trader does not pay this entire amount upfront but deposits the required margin to open the position.

Suppose a trader buys one ES contract at 7,700 points and closes the position at 7,720. The 20-point increase generates a profit of $1,000 (20 × $50), before fees and other costs. Conversely, a fall to 7,680 would result in a $1,000 loss. ES futures are cash-settled at expiry, meaning no shares of the underlying S&P 500 companies are physically delivered.

For traders interested in E-mini S&P 500 futures, Al Brooks offers a detailed price-action-based perspective on reading the market.

WTI Crude Oil futures (CL)

The CL contract represents 1,000 barrels of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil. If crude oil futures trade at $100 per barrel, the contract's notional value is $100,000 (1,000 × $100). As with ES, the trader posts margin rather than paying the full contract value upfront.

If a trader buys one CL contract at $100 per barrel and closes the position at $101, the $1 increase per barrel generates a profit of $1,000 ($1 × 1,000 barrels), before fees and other costs. A decline to $99 would produce a $1,000 loss.

Unlike ES, CL futures are physically deliverable. If a contract is held through the applicable delivery process, the seller must deliver 1,000 barrels of crude oil and the buyer must accept delivery in accordance with the contract specifications, including the designated delivery arrangements at Cushing, Oklahoma. Traders who do not intend to take or make physical delivery generally close their positions or roll them into a later contract month before the relevant deadlines.

The key distinction: Both contracts allow traders to gain or lose from price movements without paying the full contract value upfront. However, ES futures are cash-settled, whereas CL futures carry physical delivery obligations. This difference is important when deciding whether to close or roll a position before expiry.

Perpetual Futures Contracts: How They Work

A perpetual futures contract, commonly referred to as a “perp,” has no expiry date. It allows traders to gain leveraged exposure to an underlying asset without owning it directly or rolling over an expiring contract.

Unlike traditional futures, perpetual futures do not have an expiry date to bring their prices toward the spot price through settlement. To help keep perpetual futures prices aligned with the underlying asset’s spot price, exchanges use a mechanism known as the funding rate.

What is the funding rate, and how is it derived?

• The funding rate determines periodic payments exchanged between traders holding long and short positions. These payments are generally based on the difference between the perpetual contract price and the spot price, along with other factors specified by the exchange.
• When perpetual futures trade above the spot price: The funding rate is generally positive, meaning traders holding long positions pay those holding short positions.
• When perpetual futures trade below the spot price: The funding rate is generally negative, meaning traders holding short positions pay those holding long positions.
• The funding rate and payment intervals vary by exchange and contract. Although funding payments help incentivize traders to bring perpetual futures prices closer to spot prices, they do not guarantee convergence.

Despite having no fixed expiry, perpetual positions cannot necessarily remain open forever. Traders must maintain sufficient margin to cover potential losses and comply with the exchange's rules. If account equity falls below the required maintenance margin, the exchange may liquidate the position. Funding payments, trading fees, and changes in margin requirements can also affect how long a position remains viable.

Suppose Bitcoin is trading at $100,000, and a trader expects its price to rise. Instead of buying Bitcoin directly, the trader opens a long position in a Bitcoin perpetual futures contract using 10× leverage.

• Initial margin: The trader deposits $1,000 to control a position worth $10,000. -** Price movement:** If Bitcoin rises by 5% to $105,000, the position gains approximately $500, representing a 50% return on the initial margin, before fees and funding payments. If Bitcoin falls by 5% to $95,000, the trader loses approximately $500.
• Liquidation risk: If losses reduce the trader's margin below the required maintenance level, the exchange may liquidate the position before the trader can recover from the price decline.

Funding Rates vs. Futures Rollover Costs

Neither structure is automatically cheaper to hold. Perpetual futures can become expensive when funding rates remain unfavorable, while traditional futures can incur significant rollover costs when later-dated contracts trade at a premium. The more cost-effective choice depends on holding period, market conditions, funding rates, futures price spreads, and trading fees.

The recurring funding payments can significantly affect the cost of maintaining a position over time. Suppose a trader holds a $10,000 long perpetual futures position with a funding rate of 0.01% every eight hours. The trader pays $1 per funding interval, or approximately $3 per day. If the rate and position size remain unchanged for seven days, the cumulative funding cost reaches $21. Although this may seem small, funding payments can accumulate over longer holding periods, particularly when rates are elevated. Actual costs vary with the funding rate, position value, and exchange payment schedule.

Traditional futures, on the other hand, have fixed expiry dates. Traders who wish to maintain exposure beyond expiry typically roll their positions by closing the expiring contract and opening a later-dated one. The cost or benefit of rolling depends on the price difference between the two contracts, transaction fees, and market conditions.

Which Is Better for Different Trading Strategies? The choice between perpetual and traditional futures depends on the trader’s objectives, holding period, cost considerations, and risk management requirements. Neither structure is universally superior, but each may suit particular trading needs.

• Short-term crypto trading: Perpetual futures may offer convenient continuous exposure to cryptocurrency prices without expiry dates or the need to roll over contracts. However, traders should account for funding payments, trading fees, and liquidation risk.
• Longer-term directional trades: Traders planning to hold positions for weeks or months should compare expected cumulative funding payments on perpetuals with the futures basis, potential rollover costs, and transaction fees associated with dated contracts. Market conditions can make either option more economical.
• Hedging with a defined date: Traditional futures may be suitable when a trader or business wants exposure aligned with a specific future date. Contract expiries can help match the hedge to an anticipated transaction or financial obligation, although the contract’s maturity and underlying asset must be considered.
• Institutional or commodity hedging: Businesses and institutions may favor traditional futures when standardized contract specifications, delivery schedules, settlement methods, and underlying asset quantities align with their operational or financial needs.

Ultimately, the better choice depends on the intended exposure, holding period, costs, liquidity, and settlement requirements. Traders should evaluate these factors rather than assume one contract structure is inherently more advantageous than the other.

Risks Traders Should Understand Before Choosing

Both perpetual and traditional futures involve risks that traders should understand before opening a position. Leverage magnifies gains and losses, potentially causing substantial losses from relatively small price movements. In perpetual futures, volatile funding rates can increase holding costs unexpectedly, while unfavorable futures price spreads can make rolling traditional contracts expensive.

Liquidity and slippage are also important considerations. In thinly traded markets, orders may execute at prices less favorable than expected, increasing transaction costs. Liquidation risk arises when account equity falls below the required maintenance margin, potentially forcing the exchange or broker to close a position at an unfavorable time.

Traders must also understand contract specifications, including contract size, tick value, expiry dates, settlement methods, and margin requirements. These details determine how profits and losses are calculated and what obligations arise at settlement.

Holding a traditional futures contract through expiry can create unexpected obligations, particularly when physical delivery is involved. Traders must understand the applicable deadlines and delivery requirements. Rolling a position into a later contract month can also incur costs or expose the trader to unfavorable price spreads. Perpetual contracts avoid scheduled expiry but remain subject to funding payments, exchange rules, and liquidation risk.

Ultimately, choosing the appropriate contract requires assessing not only potential returns but also the total cost of holding the position, the risks involved, and the trader's ability to manage them.

MyFundedPerps Plans: Choose Your Challenge

MyFundedPerps offers one-step evaluation plans: Select, Prime, Signature and Elite, with different account sizes, profit targets and drawdown limits. Traders who pass can access funded trading, with profit splits of up to 90% and allocations of up to $300,000 in total, subject to program rules. Compare the plans and fees to find the option that suits your trading style.

Conclusion

Ultimately, understanding how these contracts work helps traders make informed decisions based on their goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk. The right approach is not simply about maximizing returns, but about choosing a structure whose costs, obligations, and flexibility align with the strategy.