Provider at a glance
- Category
- Cross-Chain Swaps
- Entity
- All 2 Squid products
- Official website
- squidrouter.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Squid
Cross-chain swap router
Cross-Chain Swaps
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 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 Squid right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Chains actually served9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Measured all-in cost6/10 here; LI.FI / Jumper scores 7
- Trust model and exploit record4/10 here; deBridge scores 7
- Published price versus observed price2/10 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 cross-chain swap route shows where it lands for you.
What will Squid cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Squid?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Squid
Compare all 4- 3LI.FI / JumperLevel on score · stronger on fee transparency (4 against 2)66
- 5Rango ExchangeLevel on score · stronger on fee transparency (4 against 2)66
- 6deBridge2 points below · stronger on fee transparency (8 against 2)64
For your setup
Find out if Squid 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 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 Squid 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 (16.2 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
356+6.726.08#4/7Loading evidence…
304+3.845.08#5/7Loading evidence…
202+1.284.08#7/7Loading evidence…
159+4.326.09#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind LI.FI / Jumper, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 64–69 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 Squid’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 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes LI.FI / Jumper+169#4 → #3
Trust model and exploit record 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes LI.FI / Jumper+168#4 → #3
Published price versus observed price 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes LI.FI / Jumper+168#4 → #3
Chains actually served 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes LI.FI / Jumper+167#4 → #3
Measured all-in cost 6 → 5 on its ladder · Rango Exchange passes it−164#4 → #6
Trust model and exploit record 4 → 3 on its ladder · Rango Exchange passes it−164#4 → #5
Published price versus observed price 2 → 1 on its ladder · Rango Exchange passes it−165#4 → #5
Smallest climb: measured all-in cost 6 → 7 passes LI.FI / Jumper, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Chains actually served — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Measured all-in cost — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Trust model and exploit record — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Published price versus observed price — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- "Squid currently charges no fees" describes a state its own documentation says is temporary — it already takes half of any integrator fee and reserves the right to add "additional platform fees on top of integrator fees". The $QUID token is now live (the homepage banner read "$QUID is now live! Buy and stake $QUID today." on 2026-09-14), and the docs have pre-authorised a platform fee.
Competitive position
Where Squid 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#3 / 712.1 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 Squid leads
- Chains actually served#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Trust model and exploit record#5 / 7
- Published price versus observed price#7 / 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.
LI.FI / Jumper#3 of 7 · score 66 · same score
Squid leads on
- Trust model and exploit record4 vs 2
- Chains actually served9 vs 8
LI.FI / Jumper leads on
- Measured all-in cost7 vs 6
- Published price versus observed price4 vs 2
Scenario cost: LI.FI / Jumper has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Rango Exchange#5 of 7 · score 66 · same score
Squid leads on
- Measured all-in cost6 vs 5
- Chains actually served9 vs 6
Rango Exchange leads on
- Trust model and exploit record5 vs 4
- Published price versus observed price4 vs 2
Largest single reason Squid is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Rango Exchange has no verified pricing for this scenario.
deBridge#6 of 7 · score 64 · 2.0 points behind
Squid leads on
- Measured all-in cost6 vs 2
- Chains actually served9 vs 2
deBridge leads on
- Trust model and exploit record7 vs 4
- Published price versus observed price8 vs 2
Largest single reason Squid is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: deBridge has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 66 · gap 14.0Why Across ranks above Squid
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 row-above bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (13.8) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisAcrossGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.117.4−13.8, 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 · w3568−2.24, worse
Trust model and exploit record · w3048−3.84, worse
Published price versus observed price · w2028−3.84, worse
Chains actually served · w1593+2.88, better
Net6680−14.0≈
Your scenario
Squid 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 6 · 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 4 · 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 2 · 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 9 · 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 (Squid 4/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Trust model and exploit record · 30%
- Execution failure (Squid 2/10): 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
- Docs state: "Squid currently charges no fees. The user will only pay gas fees on source and destination chains." and "Partners can elect a % fee they would like to charge, and Squid will receive a portion of this fee." The separate Collect Fees page states "Squid allows integrators to implement their own fee structure on top of Squid's platform fees", "Squid splits all fees collected by integrators 50/50" and "In the future, Squid may charge additional platform fees on top of integrator fees". The API requires an integrator ID, so the route was read from Squid's own frontend on 14 September 2026 04:05 UTC: 1000 USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum via Squid Intents returned toAmount 999490958 (fromAmountUSD 999.78, toAmountUSD 999.27), aggregatePriceImpact 0.0, with an "Execution fee" line ("Destination execution fee for Coral V2") of $0.009040 plus $0.01 gas and a 30-second estimate; 100 USDC returned 99940951.Squid — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDSquid — 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
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Squid's Terms of Service (Ceiba Network Inc., effective 4 August 2026) exclude sanctioned persons and anyone located in, or organised in, areas under comprehensive trade embargoes, naming Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria. The developer terms (Epiphyte AG) carry the same embargo clause without naming countries.
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: 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, #4 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:squid:2026.10.18:d00a64c75a3b
Are you Squid? 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.