Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- All 4 deBridge products
- Official website
- debridge.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 46 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
deBridge
Cross-chain bridge
Bridges
#15 Overall
Ranked #15 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
46
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $4.80 your cost/yr
Is deBridge right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Route coverage7/10 here; Symbiosis scores 9
- Trust posture5/10 here; zkSync Bridge scores 8
- Route clarity6/10 here; the category best is 9
- Transfer speed8/10 here; the category best is 10
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global. Restricted: United States.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto bridge shows where it lands for you.
What will deBridge cost you?
$4.80 your cost/yr
The fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order, relayer markup and network gas.
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Bridge fee
- 0.04%
How safe is deBridge?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to deBridge
Compare all 4- 13zkSync Bridge4 points above · stronger on trust posture (8 against 5)50$0.00
- 14Wormhole4 points above · stronger on trust posture (7 against 5)50
- 16Symbiosis5 points below · stronger on route coverage (9 against 7)41
For your setup
Find out if deBridge fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where deBridge lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best crypto bridgeNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why deBridge ranks #15
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
287+6.277.010#7/18Loading evidence…
246+4.616.09#9/18Loading evidence…
228+5.635.510#3/18Loading evidence…
265+4.165.010#9/18Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Wormhole, #14
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 44–48 and stays #15
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of deBridge’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Route coverage 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Wormhole+250#15 → #14
Route clarity 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Wormhole+351#15 → #12
Trust posture 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes Wormhole+351#15 → #12
Route coverage 7 → 2 on its ladder · Symbiosis passes it−541#15 → #16
Route clarity 6 → 0 on its ladder · Symbiosis passes it−641#15 → #16
Execution speed 8 → 1 on its ladder · Symbiosis passes it−741#15 → #16
Smallest climb: route coverage 7 → 9 passes Wormhole, #14.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Route coverage — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Trust posture — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Route clarity — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Execution speed — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
- Not the strongest fit if you only need a narrow rollup-specific route
Competitive position
Where deBridge leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 1820.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#6 / 1815.5 of 30 · best 19.5
Friction#1 / 182.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#5 / 183.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#18 / 181.4 of 18 · best 12.5
Where deBridge leads
- Execution speed#3 / 18
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Wormhole#14 of 18 · score 50 · 4.0 points ahead
deBridge leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 5
- Execution speed8 vs 4
Wormhole leads on
- Trust posture7 vs 5
Largest single reason Wormhole is ahead: measured data (+14.3 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since deBridge's figure is the fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order, relayer markup and network gas.
zkSync Bridge#13 of 18 · score 50 · 4.0 points ahead
deBridge leads on
- Route coverage7 vs 1
- Execution speed8 vs 5
zkSync Bridge leads on
- Trust posture8 vs 5
Largest single reason zkSync Bridge is ahead: measured data (+28.9 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since zkSync Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Symbiosis#16 of 18 · score 41 · 5.0 points behind
deBridge leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 3
- Execution speed8 vs 6
- Trust posture5 vs 3
Symbiosis leads on
- Route coverage9 vs 7
Largest single reason deBridge is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since deBridge's figure is the fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order, relayer markup and network gas.
Against the leader
86 vs 46 · gap 40.0Why Relay ranks above deBridge
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 40.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRelayGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.517.3−4.7, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight1.412.5−28.9, worse
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w2878−0.90, worse
Route clarity · w2467−0.77, worse
Execution speed · w2289−0.70, worse
Net4686−40.0
Your scenario
What deBridge costs on your scenario
Bridge fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
$1k a month × 12 months × 0.04% bridge fee = $4.80 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Bridge fee · published rate0.04%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$4.80
The fee alone, plus a fixed fee per order, relayer markup and network gas: not a total, and never compared as one.Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 0 of 18 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
8 of 18 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
10 of 18 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #15 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.1 listed row in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Route coveragestrength 7 · weight 28Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Route claritystrength 6 · weight 24Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Execution speedstrength 8 · weight 22Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Trust posturestrength 5 · weight 26Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Verification failure (deBridge 5/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Trust posture · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Route coverage (28%), Route clarity (24%), Execution speed (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Re-read 28 October 2026 (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-structure): "Flat fee – a fixed amount in the source‑chain native token paid to deBridge validators for processing the eventual unlock message."; "Taker margin (≈ 4 bps) – the solver’s profit."; worked example "Flat fee: 0.001 ETH Variable fee: 0.04 % × 1 000 = 0.40 USDC Taker margin: 0.40 USDC Operating expenses: ≈ 0.03 USDC". Earlier read: deBridge docs, "Fee Structure" (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-structure, fetched 30 September 2026): two order-creation fees - "Flat fee - a fixed amount in the source-chain native token paid to deBridge validators for processing the eventual unlock message." and "Variable protocol fee (4 bps) - deducted from the input token." - plus runtime costs built into the spread, "Taker margin (≈ 4 bps) - the solver's profit." and the solver's gas for fulfil, unlock and claim; "Both fees are fully refunded if the order is cancelled." The per-chain table (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fees-supported-chains.md) lists a flat fee of "0.001 ETH" on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base and Linea and warns "Protocol fees can be changed." On-chain the same day: eth_call DlnSource 0xeF4fB24aD0916217251F553c0596F8Edc630EB66 globalFixedNativeFee() at Ethereum block 26,086,358 returned 1000000000000000 wei (0.001 ETH) and globalTransferFeeBps() returned 4.deBridge — official page at docs.debridge.com ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDdeBridge — official page at docs.debridge.com ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Broader supported bridge routes across active multichain paths
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Global active multichain users
- Restricted markets
- United States
- Operating limits
- Fees, supported routes, and transfer outcomes vary by token, chain pair, and liquidity conditions.
- Availability note
- deBridge's Terms of Service (PDF, Last Updated 13 October 2025) bar Restricted Persons and state: "For the purpose of these Terms, Restricted Territory shall mean the United States of America, the People's Republic of China, Myanmar (Burma), Cote D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Cuba, Crimea and Sevastopol, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, or any other state, country or region that is subject to sanctions enforced by the United States, the United Kingdom or the European Union." VPN use to get around this is prohibited.
Legal entity on file: deBridge, placed in 4 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with deBridge: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
12 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 46, #15 of 18. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 23 October 2026
2026.10.12A product that no longer operates is never linked, and a row that says it is unavailable must carry a sunset date- fixed Bridges: Hop Protocol carries a sunset date (2026-10-23) and links to its code repository, not hop.exchange. Its criteria block is zeroed and it stays last; it is kept for reference, not as a candidate.
- changed A row with a sunset date draws no outbound link on any surface; the verdict page already withheld it.
- added On every build a check fails when a row's own notes say it is unavailable or not operating and it carries no sunset date, and when any outbound link points at a host on the list of hosts that served gambling or unrelated content.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt bridges:debridge:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you deBridge? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of deBridge , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.