Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- orbiter.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 61 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Orbiter Finance
Maker-filled multichain bridge
Bridges
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
61
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Orbiter Finance right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Route coverage7/10 here; Squid Router scores 10
- Trust posture4/10 here; Base Bridge scores 9
- Route clarity7/10 here; Base Bridge scores 8
- Transfer speed8/10 here; the category best is 10
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, 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 Orbiter Finance cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Orbiter Finance?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Orbiter Finance
Compare all 4- 4Squid Router1 point above · stronger on route coverage (10 against 7)62$0.00
- 5Bungee1 point above · stronger on trust posture (6 against 4)62$0.00
- 6Base BridgeLevel on score · stronger on trust posture (9 against 4)61$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Orbiter Finance fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Orbiter Finance 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 Orbiter Finance ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.6 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…
247+5.386.09#6/18Loading evidence…
228+5.635.510#3/18Loading evidence…
264+3.335.010#14/18Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Base Bridge, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 59–62 and ranks #4–#7
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 Orbiter Finance’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 → 8 on its ladder · passes Base Bridge+162#7 → #4
Route clarity 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Base Bridge+162#7 → #4
Trust posture 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Base Bridge+162#7 → #4
Execution speed 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Base Bridge+162#7 → #5
Route coverage 7 → 3 on its ladder · Arbitrum Bridge passes it−454#7 → #9
Route clarity 7 → 3 on its ladder · Arbitrum Bridge passes it−455#7 → #9
Trust posture 4 → 0 on its ladder · Arbitrum Bridge passes it−454#7 → #9
Smallest climb: route coverage 7 → 8 passes Base Bridge, #6.
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 — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Route clarity — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Execution speed — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
- Not the strongest fit if specialist route intelligence matters
Competitive position
Where Orbiter Finance 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#10 / 186.9 of 18 · best 12.5
Where Orbiter Finance leads
- Route clarity#6 / 18
- Execution speed#3 / 18
Where it trails
- Trust posture#14 / 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.
Base Bridge#6 of 18 · score 61 · same score
Orbiter Finance leads on
- Route coverage7 vs 2
- Execution speed8 vs 4
Base Bridge leads on
- Route clarity8 vs 7
- Trust posture9 vs 4
Largest single reason Base Bridge is ahead: measured data (+14.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Base Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Bungee#5 of 18 · score 62 · 1.0 point ahead
Orbiter Finance leads on
- Route clarity7 vs 6
- Execution speed8 vs 7
Bungee leads on
- Route coverage8 vs 7
- Trust posture6 vs 4
Largest single reason Bungee is ahead: measured data (+14.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Bungee's figure is the fee alone, plus the underlying bridge fee, swap fees and network gas.
Squid Router#4 of 18 · score 62 · 1.0 point ahead
Orbiter Finance leads on
- Route clarity7 vs 5
- Execution speed8 vs 7
Squid Router leads on
- Route coverage10 vs 7
- Trust posture5 vs 4
Largest single reason Squid Router is ahead: measured data (+14.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Squid Router's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas and destination gas.
Against the leader
86 vs 61 · gap 25.0Why Relay ranks above Orbiter Finance
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 25.0 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% weight6.912.5−14.6, worse
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w2878−0.90, worse
Execution speed · w2289−0.70, worse
Trust posture · w2645−0.83, worse
Net6186−25.0
Your scenario
Orbiter Finance 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #4 to #7 across one-point re-runs
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 7 · 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 4 · 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 (Orbiter Finance 4/10): 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
- Orbiter docs, "Maker System" (docs.orbiter.finance/welcome/maker-system.md, fetched 30 September 2026): each Maker sets its own charges - "Withholding Fee: A one-time charge to cover the cost of gas for transfers to the destination network." and "Trading Fee: Makers can choose a percentage of the trading value they wish to get from the per-transaction amount." - and "the minimum transaction value is 0.005 ETH". No percentage is published on that page or on the Bridge Protocol page, so the percentage range the previous note carried is not repeated. Orbiter's quote API (api.orbiter.finance, and the openapi.orbiter.finance mirror) did not answer on 30 September 2026, so no live quote was read.Orbiter Finance — official page at docs.orbiter.finance ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDOrbiter Finance — official page at docs.orbiter.finance ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- 74 mainnets on Orbiter's Supported Chains page on 2026-09-30: 61 EVM chains plus Solana, Eclipse, Sonic SVM, Tron, Starknet, Paradex, Sui, Movement, Fuel, TON, Hyperliquid, Immutable X and zkSync Lite
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global EVM and rollup bridge users
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Practical fit depends on exact route pair and transfer type; verify supported chains before assuming broad coverage.
- Availability note
- Orbiter is used onchain from a wallet; its Supported Chains page lists 74 mainnets across eleven VM types (read 30 September 2026). No country list was read.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Orbiter Finance: 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 61, #7 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:orbiter-finance:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you Orbiter Finance? 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 Orbiter Finance , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.