Across scores 17 points above Squid Router, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Across ranks #2 and Squid Router #4 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
Squid Router62
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #4 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+17.4
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7962+17.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Across's lead rests on lighter criteria: Squid Router is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Across leads on (26).
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user optionsSquid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Quick facts
At a glance
FactAcrossSquid Router
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).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.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesCross-asset swap and bridge across all Axelar-connected chains
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
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 Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
Squid Router
62#4 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 10/10
Tradeoff
Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if trust matters most
Trust: 7/10 against 5/10 for Squid Router (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 5/10 for Squid Router (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 10/10 against 7/10 for Squid Router (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
Squid Router
Choose Squid Router if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 10/10 against 7/10 for Across (weight 28)
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
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
by 3 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Squid Router leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Squid Router10/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Across leads
Across9/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 3 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Squid Router7/10 out of 10
Trust
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 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
Across20/20Squid Router14/20
Across leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Squid Router16.4/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Squid Router2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Squid Router3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Squid Router12.5/18
Squid Router leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Squid Router leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 28).
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 17 points above Squid Router, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Squid Router 62 (rank 4 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
