Provider at a glance
- Category
- Cross-Chain Swaps
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- rango.exchange
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Rango Exchange
Multichain swap aggregator
Cross-Chain Swaps
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 cross-chain swaps in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Rango Exchange right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Measured all-in cost5/10 here; LI.FI / Jumper scores 7
- Trust model and exploit record5/10 here; deBridge scores 7
- Published price versus observed price4/10 here; deBridge scores 8
- Chains actually served6/10 here; Squid scores 9
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 cross-chain swap route shows where it lands for you.
What will Rango Exchange cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Rango Exchange?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Rango Exchange
Compare all 4- 3LI.FI / JumperLevel on score · stronger on all in cost verified (7 against 5)66
- 4SquidLevel on score · stronger on route coverage (9 against 6)66
- 6deBridge2 points below · stronger on fee transparency (8 against 4)64
For your setup
Find out if Rango Exchange fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Rango Exchange 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 cross-chain swap routeNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Rango Exchange ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.8 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
355+5.606.08#5/7Loading evidence…
305+4.805.08#4/7Loading evidence…
204+2.564.08#4/7Loading evidence…
156+2.886.09#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Squid, #4
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 63–68 and ranks #3–#6
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 Rango Exchange’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.
Measured all-in cost 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Squid+168#5 → #3
Trust model and exploit record 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Squid+168#5 → #3
Published price versus observed price 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Squid+167#5 → #3
Chains actually served 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Squid+166#5 → #3
Measured all-in cost 5 → 4 on its ladder · deBridge passes it−163#5 → #6
Trust model and exploit record 5 → 4 on its ladder · deBridge passes it−164#5 → #6
Published price versus observed price 4 → 2 on its ladder · deBridge passes it−263#5 → #6
Smallest climb: measured all-in cost 5 → 6 passes Squid, #4.
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
- Measured all-in cost — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Trust model and exploit record — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Published price versus observed price — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Chains actually served — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The published rate and the observed rate differ. The fee-structure page says Rango "typically adds a 0.15% fee on top of the affiliate fee" when an API key is used, while the quote obtained on 2026-09-14 with the public test key printed in Rango's own docs carried a "Rango Fee" of 1.000000 USDC on 1000 USDC (10 bps); the Rango dApp is stated to charge no fees.
- The chain count depends on what you count: /basic/meta (called 2026-09-14 with the documented public test key) returned 103 blockchains, of which only 56 carry enabled=true, and the score rests on the enabled count; 209 swappers were listed, 35 of them bridges.
- Measured 2026-09-14 with the documented public test key: 1000 USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum returned 999.000000 out via BobGateway with a 1.000000 USDC "Rango Fee" plus 0.00000744 ETH network fee, about 10.2 bps all-in, and 100 USDC returned 99.892087 via CCTP (Rango Fee 0.100000, Swapper Fee 0.007913), about 12.8 bps. That is roughly twice Squid's measured cost and an order of magnitude below deBridge's. The single 52 bps sample taken on 2026-08-04 through /routing/best with an undocumented key is superseded by this reading.
Competitive position
Where Rango Exchange 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#5 / 711.9 of 30 · best 17.4
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Rango Exchange leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Measured all-in cost#5 / 7
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.
Squid#4 of 7 · score 66 · same score
Rango Exchange leads on
- Trust model and exploit record5 vs 4
- Published price versus observed price4 vs 2
Squid leads on
- Measured all-in cost6 vs 5
- Chains actually served9 vs 6
Largest single reason Squid is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Squid has no verified pricing for this scenario.
LI.FI / Jumper#3 of 7 · score 66 · same score
Rango Exchange leads on
- Trust model and exploit record5 vs 2
LI.FI / Jumper leads on
- Measured all-in cost7 vs 5
- Chains actually served8 vs 6
Largest single reason LI.FI / Jumper is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: LI.FI / Jumper has no verified pricing for this scenario.
deBridge#6 of 7 · score 64 · 2.0 points behind
Rango Exchange leads on
- Measured all-in cost5 vs 2
- Chains actually served6 vs 2
deBridge leads on
- Trust model and exploit record7 vs 5
- Published price versus observed price8 vs 4
Largest single reason Rango Exchange is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: deBridge has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 66 · gap 14.0Why Across ranks above Rango Exchange
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 14.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisAcrossGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.917.4−14.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisAcrossPoints
Measured all-in cost · w3558−3.36, worse
Trust model and exploit record · w3058−2.88, worse
Published price versus observed price · w2048−2.56, worse
Chains actually served · w1563+1.44, better
Net6680−14.0
Your scenario
Rango Exchange is not priced for this scenario
Swap 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 14 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 medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, 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 #3 to #6 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Measured all-in coststrength 5 · weight 35Report 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 model and exploit recordstrength 5 · weight 30Report 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.Published price versus observed pricestrength 4 · weight 20Report 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.Chains actually servedstrength 6 · weight 15Report 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 (Rango Exchange 5/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Trust model and exploit record · 30%
- Execution failure (Rango Exchange 4/10): you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Published price versus observed price · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Regulatory 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: Measured all-in cost (35%), Chains actually served (15%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Rango's fee-structure page states the Rango dApp "is a zero fee swap interface and charges no fees or costs for swaps", while "When using Rango Public Test API Key or Private API Key, Rango typically adds a 0.15% fee on top of the affiliate fee"; the Rango Protocol Fee is "a fixed percentage of the transaction amount". The monetization page quantifies the integrator side: "The maximum fee you could charge users is 3 percent" and "The default value is 0.1 percent or 10 bps"; "Rango shares 50% of these collected fees with the affiliates". Swapper fees are "charges applied by the protocols that facilitate swaps, bridging, or asset aggregation", collected by those protocols. Measured 14 September 2026 04:10 UTC with the documented public test key: 1000 USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum returned 999.000000 out via BobGateway with a "Rango Fee" of 1.000000 USDC (10 bps) plus 0.00000744 ETH network fee; 100 USDC returned 99.892087 via CCTP (Rango Fee 0.100000, Swapper Fee 0.007913).Rango Exchange — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDRango Exchange — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- United States
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Rango's Terms of Use exclude anyone located in, a citizen of, or incorporated in the United States, with no exceptions. They also exclude wallets in Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Crimea and Sevastopol, the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, DR Congo, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nicaragua, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Zimbabwe. VPN circumvention is prohibited.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Rango Exchange: 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.
10 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 66, #5 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 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.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt cross_chain_swaps:rango:2026.10.18:d00a64c75a3b
Are you Rango Exchange? 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.