Across vs Orbiter Finance Across leads by 18 points.
Across scores 18 points above Orbiter Finance, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Across ranks #2 and Orbiter Finance #7 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
Orbiter Finance61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #7 of 18
Across scores 18 points above Orbiter Finance, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed.
Across #2 of 1879
Orbiter Finance #7 of 1861
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termAcross leads on 3 of 4 published criteria; Orbiter Finance on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermAcrossOrbiter FinanceWeightPoints
Trust7/104/106.2+4.9for Across+2.5 of 32
Route clarity9/107/105.8+3.0for Across+1.5 of 32
Transfer speed10/108/105.3+2.7for Across+1.4 of 32
Trust recordScore dimension6.43.28+8.3for Across
Net of the terms+18.9
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+18.7
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7961+18.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user optionsOrbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: 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
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactAcrossOrbiter Finance
PricingSnapshotAcross Docs, "Fees in the System" (docs.across.to/introduction/fees, fetched 30 September 2026): the whole fee is the spread, "totalFee = inputAmount - outputAmount", split into an LP Fee (utilization-based, Aave-style two-slope curve, per route) and a Relayer Fee covering destination gas, capital opportunity cost and capital at risk; "If the relayer takes repayment on the origin chain (same chain as the deposit), no crosschain rebalancing is needed, so LP fees are zero." No headline percentage is published. Integrators may add an app fee on top ("Set appFee (a decimal from 0 to 1 , e.g. 0.01 = 1%) and appFeeRecipient on your Swap API request."). Measured the same day on app.across.to/api/suggested-fees for 1000000000 USDC base units (six decimals) Ethereum to Arbitrum: "outputAmount":"999892297", "capitalFeeTotal":"100000", "relayGasFeeTotal":"7703", "lpFeePct":"0", "estimatedFillTimeSec":2 (arithmetic: 1000000000 - 999892297 = 107703 base units, about 1.08 bps of the amount sent, plus origin-chain gas that the endpoint does not return).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.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transaction
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Across
79#2 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Across if trust matters most — it scores 7/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Pick it when
Orbiter Finance leads Across on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
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
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if trust matters most
Trust: 7/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 10/10 against 8/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 22)
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
Orbiter Finance
Orbiter Finance leads Across on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Orbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: 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
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Route coverage
weight 6.7 of 86Tie
Across7/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Across leads
Across9/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Trust
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86
Across20/20Orbiter Finance20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Orbiter Finance15.5/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Orbiter Finance2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Orbiter Finance3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Orbiter Finance6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Orbiter Finance leads on is the one you are buying.
Orbiter Finance leads Across on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.
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%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Across scores 18 points above Orbiter Finance, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
