Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- All 2 Squid products
- Official website
- app.squidrouter.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Squid Router
Cross-chain swap router on Axelar
Bridges
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Squid Router right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Route coverage10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Trust posture5/10 here; Base Bridge scores 9
- Route clarity5/10 here; Jumper Exchange scores 8
- Transfer speed7/10 here; the category best is 10
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 Squid Router cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
The fee alone, plus network gas and destination gas.
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Bridge fee
- 0%
How safe is Squid Router?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Squid Router
Compare all 4- 3Jumper Exchange1 point above · stronger on route clarity (8 against 5)63$0.00
- 5BungeeLevel on score · stronger on trust posture (6 against 5)62$0.00
- 6Base Bridge1 point below · stronger on trust posture (9 against 5)61$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Squid Router fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Squid Router 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 Squid Router ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.9 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
2810+8.967.010#1/18Loading evidence…
245+3.846.09#12/18Loading evidence…
227+4.935.510#5/18Loading 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−1behind Jumper Exchange, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 60–63 and ranks #3–#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 Squid Router’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 clarity 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Jumper Exchange+163#4 → #3
Trust posture 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Jumper Exchange+163#4 → #3
Execution speed 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Jumper Exchange+265#4 → #3
Route coverage 10 → 9 on its ladder · Bungee passes it−160#4 → #7
Route clarity 5 → 4 on its ladder · Bungee passes it−160#4 → #7
Trust posture 5 → 4 on its ladder · Bungee passes it−160#4 → #7
Smallest climb: route clarity 5 → 6 passes Jumper Exchange, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Route coverage — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Trust posture — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Route clarity — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Execution speed — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
- Settlement relies on operator-run TEEs that verify fills and sign releases, with Axelar still carrying destination-swap messages; an extra trust assumption versus canonical bridges
Competitive position
Where Squid Router 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#4 / 1816.4 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#1 / 1812.5 of 18 · pool best
Where Squid Router leads
- Route coverage#1 / 18
- Execution speed#5 / 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.
Bungee#5 of 18 · score 62 · same score
Squid Router leads on
- Route coverage10 vs 8
Bungee leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 5
- Trust posture6 vs 5
Largest single reason Squid Router is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Bungee's figure is the fee alone, plus the underlying bridge fee, swap fees and network gas.
Jumper Exchange#3 of 18 · score 63 · 1.0 point ahead
Squid Router leads on
- Route coverage10 vs 9
- Execution speed7 vs 6
Jumper Exchange leads on
- Route clarity8 vs 5
Largest single reason Jumper Exchange is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Jumper Exchange's figure is the fee alone, plus the underlying bridge fee, swap fees and network gas.
Base Bridge#6 of 18 · score 61 · 1.0 point behind
Squid Router leads on
- Route coverage10 vs 2
- Execution speed7 vs 4
Base Bridge leads on
- Route clarity8 vs 5
- Trust posture9 vs 5
Largest single reason Squid Router is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Base Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Against the leader
86 vs 62 · gap 24.0Why Relay ranks above Squid Router
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 24.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRelayGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.020.0−15.6, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight16.417.3−2.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight12.512.5same
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w28108+1.79, better
Route clarity · w2457−1.54, worse
Execution speed · w2279−1.41, worse
Net6286−24.0
Your scenario
What Squid Router 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% bridge fee = $0.00 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Bridge fee · published rate0%
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.
$0.00
The fee alone, plus network gas and destination 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #3 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 10 · 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 5 · 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 7 · 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 (Squid Router 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
- Squid docs, "Transaction times and fees" (docs.squidrouter.com/additional-resources/architecture/transaction-times-and-fees, fetched 30 September 2026; the page reads "Last updated 6 months ago"): "Squid currently charges no fees. The user will only pay gas fees on source and destination chains." Integrators may add their own fee: "Partners can elect a % fee they would like to charge, and Squid will receive a portion of this fee." Routes with a destination swap also pay Axelar relayer gas in the source-chain token ("This fee is paid to Axelar's relayers, who trustlessly pass messages and proofs across chains."). Squid's homepage (squidrouter.com) advertises "Avg total cost $0.02 $0.10" (Squid versus others), "Based on a $100 ETH transaction from Ethereum mainnet." The swap-leg percentage and relay-cost range the previous note carried are on neither page.Squid Router — official page at docs.squidrouter.com ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDSquid Router — official page at docs.squidrouter.com ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, Avalanche, BNB Chain, Cosmos chains via Axelar, 70+ more
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Slippage configurable; routes vary in liquidity and depth by chain pair.
- Availability note
- Squid's Terms of Service (Ceiba Network Inc., effective 4 August 2026) exclude any user who is, or acts for anyone, "located, ordinarily resident, organized, established or domiciled in areas subject to comprehensive trade embargoes, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria."
Legal entity on file: Squid, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Squid Router: 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 62, #4 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:squid-router:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you Squid Router? 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.