Provider at a glance
- Category
- Cross-Chain Messaging
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- union.build
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 75 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Union
IBC-compatible messaging with ZK proofs
Cross-Chain Messaging
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 cross-chain messaging in the published ranking
75
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Union right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Message trust model6/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Application configurable security7/10 here; Hyperlane scores 9
- Forged and stuck message record6/10 here; Hyperlane scores 7
- Cost per message4/10 here; LayerZero V2 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 messaging protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Union cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Union?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Union
Compare all 4- 1Hyperlane5 points above · stronger on security configurability (9 against 7)80
- 3Axelar (General Message Passing)1 point below · stronger on cost per message (6 against 4)74
- 4LayerZero V22 points below · stronger on cost per message (8 against 4)73
For your setup
Find out if Union fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Union 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 messaging protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Union ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.0 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+6.725.06#1/7Loading evidence…
257+5.605.09#3/7Loading evidence…
256+4.807.08#5/7Loading evidence…
154+1.926.08#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Hyperlane, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–77 and ranks #2–#4
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 Union’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.
Message trust model 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Hyperlane+380#2 → #1
Forged and stuck message record 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Hyperlane+480#2 → #1
Cost per message 4 → 10 on its ladder · passes Hyperlane+680#2 → #1
Message trust model 6 → 5 on its ladder · Axelar (General Message Passing) passes it−172#2 → #4
Application configurable security 7 → 6 on its ladder · Axelar (General Message Passing) passes it−173#2 → #4
Forged and stuck message record 6 → 5 on its ladder · Axelar (General Message Passing) passes it−173#2 → #4
Smallest climb: message trust model 6 → 9 passes Hyperlane, #1.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Message trust model — 6/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Application configurable security — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Forged and stuck message record — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Cost per message — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- The light clients do not remove the committee; they move it to Union's own chain. Every client registered on the Ethereum ibc-union core rests on Union's CometBLS consensus, so a forged Ethereum-to-Arbitrum message needs more than two thirds of Union's bonded stake. On 2026-09-28, 6 of 36 bonded validators held 67.4%, a smaller collusion set than Axelar's or Wormhole's, though a forgery needs an invalid Union block rather than a bare attestation. The operating history is also the shortest here: mainnet dates to September 2025, and no per-message fee could be quoted from Ethereum, so the integration cannot be priced and predicted in advance the way the incumbent protocols allow.
Competitive position
Where Union 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#2 / 714.3 of 30 · best 16.3
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 Union leads
- Message trust model#1 / 7
- Application configurable security#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Forged and stuck message record#5 / 7
- Cost per message#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.
Axelar (General Message Passing)#3 of 7 · score 74 · 1.0 point behind
Union leads on
- Application configurable security7 vs 4
Axelar (General Message Passing) leads on
- Forged and stuck message record7 vs 6
- Cost per message6 vs 4
Largest single reason Union is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Axelar (General Message Passing) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
LayerZero V2#4 of 7 · score 73 · 2.0 points behind
Union leads on
- Message trust model6 vs 5
- Forged and stuck message record6 vs 2
LayerZero V2 leads on
- Application configurable security9 vs 7
- Cost per message8 vs 4
Largest single reason Union is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: LayerZero V2 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Hyperlane#1 of 7 · score 80 · 5.0 points ahead
Union leads on
- Message trust model6 vs 5
Hyperlane leads on
- Application configurable security9 vs 7
- Forged and stuck message record7 vs 6
- Cost per message7 vs 4
Largest single reason Hyperlane is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Hyperlane has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 75 · gap 5.0Why Hyperlane ranks above Union
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 5.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisHyperlaneGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.316.3−5.2, 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 criterionThisHyperlanePoints
Message trust model · w3565+1.12, better
Application configurable security · w2579−1.60, worse
Forged and stuck message record · w2567−0.80, worse
Cost per message · w1547−1.44, worse
Net7580−5.0
Your scenario
Union is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 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
Evidence read 28 September 2026
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 #2 to #4 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.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Message trust modelstrength 6 · weight 35Report an error—28 September 2026*
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.Application configurable securitystrength 7 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 2026*
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.Forged and stuck message recordstrength 6 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 2026*
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.Cost per messagestrength 4 · weight 15Report an error—28 September 2026*
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: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Message trust model · 35% (Union 6/10)Scored by Application configurable security · 25% (Union 7/10)Scored by Forged and stuck message record · 25% (Union 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Liveness 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: Cost per message (15%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No per-message price is published or quotable. The deployments page, where contracts and fee parameters would be enumerated, still describes itself only as covering "All deployments of the ibc-union stack, light clients, ucs* apps, and other miscellaneous contracts deployed by on Union." (docs.union.build/protocol/deployments/, fetched 28 September 2026), and its HTML still contains zero 0x-prefixed contract addresses. No Ethereum-mainnet quoting function for Union messaging was identified on the pages read on 28 September 2026 (deployments, protocol overview, UCS03-ZKGM channel page, mainnet infrastructure page), so the Ethereum-to-Arbitrum cost stays recorded as unverified rather than estimated.Union — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDUnion — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Union, Ethereum, Arbitrum One, Base, Optimism, BNB Chain, Berachain, Sei, Corn, BOB, Osmosis, Neutron, Babylon
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Union: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 75, #2 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 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 cross_chain_messaging:union:2026.10.18:8b28bf869056
Are you Union? 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.