Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- everclear.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Everclear (formerly Connext)
Cross-chain clearing layer
Bridges
#17 Overall
Ranked #17 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
41
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Everclear (formerly Connext) right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Route coverage3/10 here; Symbiosis scores 9
- Trust posture2/10 here; deBridge scores 5
- Route clarity2/10 here; deBridge scores 6
- Transfer speed4/10 here; deBridge scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
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 Everclear (formerly Connext) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Everclear (formerly Connext)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Everclear (formerly Connext)
Compare all 4- 15deBridge5 points above · stronger on route coverage (7 against 3)46$4.80
- 16SymbiosisLevel on score · stronger on route coverage (9 against 3)41
- 18Hop ProtocolLevel on score · stronger on trust posture (5 against 2)41
For your setup
Find out if Everclear (formerly Connext) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Everclear (formerly Connext) 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 Everclear (formerly Connext) ranks #17
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (8.7 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
283+2.697.010#12/18Loading evidence…
242+1.546.09#18/18Loading evidence…
224+2.825.510#12/18Loading evidence…
262+1.665.010#18/18Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Symbiosis, #16
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 41 and stays #17
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
The ranking was run again with each of Everclear (formerly Connext)’s criterion scores changed on its own, as far as each ladder goes in both directions. None of those changes moves its rank.
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 — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Trust posture — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Route clarity — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Execution speed — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
- Settlement depends on Everclear's clearing chain, Hyperlane message transport and off-chain agents; its docs pages read on 2026-09-30 state no security model
- L2BEAT states that "The Everclear Hub L3 stopped producing blocks on May 1, 2026" and that "the broader Everclear clearing-layer protocol continues operating on its supported L2s" (l2beat/l2beat, packages/config/src/projects/everclear/everclear.ts at commit 64afdbe, 20 October 2026, read 21 October 2026). Everclear's FAQ, read the same day, still describes intents being sent to the Hub, so where settlement happens now is not established here
Competitive position
Where Everclear (formerly Connext) 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#7 / 1814.0 of 20 · best 20.0
Published criteria#17 / 186.5 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#10 / 186.9 of 18 · best 12.5
Where Everclear (formerly Connext) leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Route clarity#18 / 18
- Trust posture#18 / 18
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.
Symbiosis#16 of 18 · score 41 · same score
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads onNo scored criterion
Symbiosis leads on
- Route coverage9 vs 3
- Route clarity3 vs 2
- Execution speed6 vs 4
Largest single reason Symbiosis is ahead: published criteria (+16.4 display points).Scenario cost: Symbiosis has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Hop Protocol#18 of 18 · score 41 · same score
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads onNo scored criterion
Hop Protocol leads on
- Route clarity4 vs 2
- Trust posture5 vs 2
Largest single reason Everclear (formerly Connext) is ahead: published criteria (+16.9 display points).Scenario cost: Hop Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
deBridge#15 of 18 · score 46 · 5.0 points ahead
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads onNo scored criterion
deBridge leads on
- Route coverage7 vs 3
- Route clarity6 vs 2
- Execution speed8 vs 4
Largest single reason deBridge is ahead: published criteria (+23.4 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 41 · gap 45.0Why Relay ranks above Everclear (formerly Connext)
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; a floor bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (64.5) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisRelayGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.020.0−15.6, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight6.517.3−28.1, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight6.912.5−14.6, worse
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w2838−4.48, worse
Route clarity · w2427−3.84, worse
Execution speed · w2249−3.52, worse
Trust posture · w2625−2.50, worse
Net4186−45.0≈
Your scenario
Everclear (formerly Connext) is not priced for this 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
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
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.
Not priced on this basis
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 #17 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 3 · 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 2 · 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 4 · 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 2 · 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 (Everclear (formerly Connext) 2/10): 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
- Everclear FAQ (docs.everclear.org/developers/faqs.md, fetched 30 September 2026): "Protocol fees are charged dynamically depending on the route (combination of asset, origin, destinations). Fees are levied against the amount sent." Gas is paid on top, and an intent that is not matched is discounted each epoch until netted ("discountBPS = (currentEpoch - entryEpoch - 1) * discountPerEpoch"). No fee rate is published on that page. This corrects the previous note: Everclear does charge the sender of an intent.Everclear (formerly Connext) — official page at docs.everclear.org ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDEverclear (formerly Connext) — official page at docs.everclear.org ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- 25 spoke chains on Everclear's mainnet contracts page on 30 September 2026, Solana and TRON among them, reached through integrating apps
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Infrastructure-level; end-user limits depend on the consuming application.
- Availability note
- Permissionless onchain.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Everclear (formerly Connext): 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 41, #17 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:connext-everclear:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you Everclear (formerly Connext)? 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.