The crypto ecosystem has matured greatly since the early years, and by 2025, the choice between centralized exchanges (CEXs) and decentralized exchanges (DEXs) is no longer just a matter of ideological preference.
Today, this choice involves an analysis of security, speed, liquidity, costs, and profit opportunities — especially for those who already understand the market and seek to optimize their strategy.
On one hand, platforms like Binance and Coinbase offer high liquidity, almost instant execution, and user-friendly interfaces. On the other hand, protocols like Uniswap V4 and dYdX provide full control over funds and more privacy, but still require technical knowledge and acceptance of certain risks.
In this article, we will compare the two models based on the current scenario, so you can make the best decision for your profile while navigating the waters of the crypto ocean. And we will do this as follows: we will present the details of CEXs and DEXs from different perspectives, to finally present how the scenario is in 2025 in both cases.
1. Security: centralized custody vs. self-custody
CEXs
They function as intermediaries that hold the user's assets.
Strengths: they are robust security systems, there is insurance against losses in some cases, and customer support is available in case of problems.
Weaknesses: custody risk (hacks, bankruptcy, account freezing) and dependence on regulatory compliance.
Example: in 2022, the collapse of FTX showed how centralized custody can fail; since then, major CEXs have reinforced verified reserves via Proof of Reserves.
DEXs
Direct trading via smart contracts, without funds passing through a custodian.
Strengths: total self-custody, with no risk of platform insolvency.
Weaknesses: vulnerabilities in the code can lead to exploits, and the responsibility for security falls 100% on the user.
Example: in 2024, a bug in a layer 2 protocol caused temporary liquidity loss in Uniswap pools, even with prior auditing.
Scenario in 2025:
More frequent audits and million-dollar bug bounties have reduced incidents in DEXs, but the risk of failures persists. For large amounts, many traders use a hybrid strategy, dividing funds between CEX and DEX.
2. Speed and user experience
CEXs
Execution: orders processed instantly by centralized engines, regardless of blockchain congestion.
Interface: user-friendly design and complete features — OCO orders, margin trading, derivatives, and integration with mobile apps.
Access to fiat: direct deposits and withdrawals in local currency, something DEXs do not offer.
DEXs
Execution: depends on the performance of the blockchain used. On networks like Ethereum L1, there can be delays during peak times; layer 2 solutions (Arbitrum, Optimism) and fast blockchains (Solana, Avalanche) have reduced this issue.
Interface: has improved significantly since 2020, but still requires users to understand Web3 wallets, transaction approvals, and network fees.
Flexibility: any token can be listed without approval — which increases diversity, but also the risk of scams.
Scenario in 2025:
For complex orders or high-volume trading, CEXs remain faster and more stable. DEXs today offer a good experience in spot trading and interactions.DeFi, as long as the network used is efficient.
3. Profitability and costs
CEXs
Fees: competitive for large transactions, especially with VIP programs based on volume.
Liquidity: tight spreads, which favor large orders without significant price impact.
Extra products: staking, savings, and exclusive launchpads for clients.
DEXs
Network fees (gas): vary depending on the blockchain; on Ethereum L1, they can be high, but on L2s and alternative networks, they are very low.
Slippage: can reduce gains in low liquidity pairs.
DeFi opportunities: liquidity provision, farming, and passive yield strategies that do not exist in CEXs.
Quick listing: promising tokens can be traded on DEXs weeks or months before reaching CEXs, creating opportunities for early adopters.
Scenario in 2025:
For arbitrage and high-frequency operations, CEXs tend to be more profitable. For yield farming, speculation on newly launched tokens, and liquidity strategies, DEXs may outperform the returns of centralized exchanges.
4. Compliance and access restrictions
CEXs: comply with KYC/AML, offer legal backing and regulatory security for institutions, but may block access in restricted jurisdictions.
DEXs: allow global access without registration, preserving privacy, but do not offer legal protection in potential legal disputes.
The regulatory tightening in 2024/25 forced some CEXs out of entire markets, while DEXs remained accessible — although under greater scrutiny from regulatory bodies.
Practical examples in 2025 of CEXs and DEXs
Binance (CEX): global leader in volume, integrates card payments, and offers instant trading of new pairs.
Coinbase (CEX): focuses on compliance and integration with crypto ETFs, attracting institutional investors.
Uniswap V4 (DEX): innovated with hooks that allow customization of pools and dynamic fees.
dYdX Chain (DEX): after migrating to its own blockchain via Cosmos SDK, offers derivatives with low latency and self-custody.
Hybrid strategy: leveraging the best of both worlds
More and more investors are using a combined approach:
CEX for fiat/crypto conversion, high-volume trading, and derivatives.
DEX for storing funds with self-custody and exploring DeFi strategies.
This diversification reduces risks, takes advantage of exclusive opportunities of each model, and allows for greater flexibility. In any case, it is worth reinforcing that in hybrid strategies, while all benefits are present, the difficulties also require care — and more care than if you were using just one strategy or the other.
Quick comparison between CEX and DEX
Security:
CEXs offer high protection against direct attacks on users but have custody risk and depend on the company’s solvency.
DEXs give total control to the investor, but expose them to the risk of failures in smart contracts and require care with private keys.
Speed:
CEXs process orders instantly.
DEXs depend on the blockchain network and may experience slowness during congestions, unless they use L2 or fast networks.
Liquidity:
CEXs have deep markets with very low spreads.
DEXs have variable liquidity, which can be excellent for popular pairs but limited for smaller tokens.
Privacy:
CEXs require KYC and comply with regulations.
DEXs allow trading without registration, preserving anonymity.
Access to fiat:
CEXs offer direct deposits and withdrawals in local currency.
DEXs do not have native fiat integration.
Extra products:
CEXs offer centralized staking, derivatives, launchpads, and affiliate programs.
DEXs allow yield farming, liquidity provision, and participation in DeFi protocols.
Regulatory risk:
CEXs are directly impacted by changes in legislation.
DEXs are less affected but may face front-end restrictions.
With more options comes more responsibility
In 2025, there is no single answer to which model is better. CEXs remain unbeatable in speed, liquidity, and integration with fiat, while DEXs offer total sovereignty over funds, global access, and exclusive opportunities in DeFi.
The more prepared investor is the one who understands the advantages and limitations of each model and knows when and how to use both to achieve their goals. After all, in the crypto market, flexibility is as important as security.
And you, have you ever stopped to think about all these issues involving CEXs and DEXs?
---
Photo available on Freepik
