Recherche vérifiée par sources: GATE IO / MEXC

Verified source facts

1. Gate US says its eligible spot interface supports market and limit orders, with market orders prioritizing immediate execution and limit orders using a specified price or better. 2. Gate API v4 documents additional execution fields and conditional-order structures, but API documentation does not prove those controls are present on every retail interface or regional entity. 3. MEXC documents five retail spot order types: limit, market, TP/SL, OCO and trailing stop. 4. MEXC distinguishes open and cancelled order history from completed spot statements, so operators need both views for reconciliation.

Comparison at a glance

1. Compare entity and region on the same job

A platform comparison becomes useful only when both venues are measured against one job. For entity and region, that job concerns which Gate or MEXC entity serves the account. Marketing pages frequently describe broad capability while the actual decision lives in a specific pair, contract, network, entity, or account tier. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then verify the signed-in legal entity before comparing features. Until that check is complete, neither venue earns the point.

The comparison should distinguish a published ceiling from an executable outcome. A fee table does not reveal slippage; a product menu does not prove regional eligibility; a security feature page does not prove the control is enabled on the reader's account. Record the route from public statement to authenticated evidence. The unresolved variable is regional feature parity, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For entity and region, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how which Gate or MEXC entity serves the account changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator verify the signed-in legal entity before comparing features. The remaining uncertainty—regional feature parity—belongs in the dated scorecard. That produces a job-specific preference instead of a permanent winner.

2. Compare pair eligibility on the same job

For pair eligibility, that job concerns whether the intended pair supports the order control. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then check the live order ticket for that pair.

The unresolved variable is future pair restrictions, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For pair eligibility, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how whether the intended pair supports the order control changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator check the live order ticket for that pair. The remaining uncertainty—future pair restrictions—belongs in the dated scorecard.

3. Compare market order on the same job

For market order, that job concerns immediacy versus price uncertainty. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then set a maximum acceptable slippage rule.

The unresolved variable is stress-market depth, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For market order, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how immediacy versus price uncertainty changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator set a maximum acceptable slippage rule. The remaining uncertainty—stress-market depth—belongs in the dated scorecard.

4. Compare limit order on the same job

For limit order, that job concerns price protection without execution certainty. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then define expiry and cancellation ownership.

The unresolved variable is queue position, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For limit order, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how price protection without execution certainty changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator define expiry and cancellation ownership. The remaining uncertainty—queue position—belongs in the dated scorecard.

5. Compare conditional trigger on the same job

For conditional trigger, that job concerns trigger price source and resulting order type. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then test the trigger with a non-critical amount.

The unresolved variable is gap behavior, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For conditional trigger, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how trigger price source and resulting order type changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator test the trigger with a non-critical amount. The remaining uncertainty—gap behavior—belongs in the dated scorecard.

6. Compare oco or tp/sl on the same job

For oco or tp/sl, that job concerns linked-order cancellation semantics. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then confirm which leg cancels after a partial fill.

The unresolved variable is race conditions, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For oco or tp/sl, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how linked-order cancellation semantics changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator confirm which leg cancels after a partial fill. The remaining uncertainty—race conditions—belongs in the dated scorecard.

7. Compare trailing logic on the same job

For trailing logic, that job concerns reference price, callback and activation rules. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then save the exact parameters before submission.

The unresolved variable is venue-side calculation changes, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For trailing logic, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how reference price, callback and activation rules changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator save the exact parameters before submission. The remaining uncertainty—venue-side calculation changes—belongs in the dated scorecard.

8. Compare time in force on the same job

For time in force, that job concerns GTC, IOC or other persistence choices. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then match persistence to the trading job.

The unresolved variable is interface availability, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For time in force, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how GTC, IOC or other persistence choices changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator match persistence to the trading job. The remaining uncertainty—interface availability—belongs in the dated scorecard.

9. Compare records on the same job

For records, that job concerns open orders, order history, trades and statements. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then export both order and settlement evidence.

The unresolved variable is retention limits, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For records, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how open orders, order history, trades and statements changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator export both order and settlement evidence. The remaining uncertainty—retention limits—belongs in the dated scorecard.

10. Compare user fit on the same job

For user fit, that job concerns simple manual execution versus advanced automation. Build two evidence rows from the same timestamp, then choose the smallest control set that can be monitored.

The unresolved variable is account-specific access, so the scorecard must preserve that blank instead of awarding a speculative advantage.

For user fit, connect the finding to the reader's actual order plan rather than the other nine rows in the abstract. Document how simple manual execution versus advanced automation changes the entry, exit, monitoring, or fallback decision, and make the operator choose the smallest control set that can be monitored. The remaining uncertainty—account-specific access—belongs in the dated scorecard.

Decision scenarios

Scenario 1: when entity and region becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is which Gate or MEXC entity serves the account. The correct response is not to infer a universal platform or product winner. It is to verify the signed-in legal entity before comparing features, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed. If the evidence changes, the decision must be reopened. This produces a repeatable operating rule rather than a one-time opinion.

Scenario 2: when pair eligibility becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is whether the intended pair supports the order control. It is to check the live order ticket for that pair, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 3: when market order becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is immediacy versus price uncertainty. It is to set a maximum acceptable slippage rule, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 4: when limit order becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is price protection without execution certainty. It is to define expiry and cancellation ownership, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 5: when conditional trigger becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is trigger price source and resulting order type. It is to test the trigger with a non-critical amount, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.

Scenario 6: when oco or tp/sl becomes decisive

Consider a reader whose main constraint is linked-order cancellation semantics. It is to confirm which leg cancels after a partial fill, retain the evidence, and define a stop condition before funds or permissions are committed.