deBridge vs Arbitrum Bridge Arbitrum Bridge leads by 9 points.
Arbitrum Bridge scores 9 points above deBridge, led by trust and route clarity. deBridge ranks #15 and Arbitrum Bridge #8 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
deBridge46
vs
ARArbitrum Bridge55
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #15 and #8 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+8.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5546+9.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Arbitrum Bridge's lead rests on lighter criteria: deBridge is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Arbitrum Bridge leads on (26).
Arbitrum BridgeScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum movementStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)deBridgeScore 46Cross-chain bridge for users who want faster execution with broader route reachStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactdeBridgeArbitrum Bridge
Bridge feeSnapshotRe-read 28 October 2026 (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-structure): "Flat fee – a fixed amount in the source‑chain native token paid to deBridge validators for processing the eventual unlock message."; "Taker margin (≈ 4 bps) – the solver’s profit."; worked example "Flat fee: 0.001 ETH Variable fee: 0.04 % × 1 000 = 0.40 USDC Taker margin: 0.40 USDC Operating expenses: ≈ 0.03 USDC". Earlier read: deBridge docs, "Fee Structure" (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fee-structure, fetched 30 September 2026): two order-creation fees - "Flat fee - a fixed amount in the source-chain native token paid to deBridge validators for processing the eventual unlock message." and "Variable protocol fee (4 bps) - deducted from the input token." - plus runtime costs built into the spread, "Taker margin (≈ 4 bps) - the solver's profit." and the solver's gas for fulfil, unlock and claim; "Both fees are fully refunded if the order is cancelled." The per-chain table (docs.debridge.com/dln-details/overview/fees-supported-chains.md) lists a flat fee of "0.001 ETH" on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base and Linea and warns "Protocol fees can be changed." On-chain the same day: eth_call DlnSource 0xeF4fB24aD0916217251F553c0596F8Edc630EB66 globalFixedNativeFee() at Ethereum block 26,086,358 returned 1000000000000000 wei (0.001 ETH) and globalTransferFeeBps() returned 4.Arbitrum docs, "Quickstart: Arbitrum bridge" (docs.arbitrum.io/arbitrum-bridge/quickstart.md, fetched 30 September 2026): no bridge fee is stated on that page; the user pays gas - "You’ll need the native currency of the parent chain to bridge your assets to the destination chain." A withdrawal needs a second, parent-chain transaction after the challenge period: "Upon confirmation (about one week later), you can execute them" (docs.arbitrum.io cross-chain messaging page). No dollar cost is published on either page, so the deposit and withdrawal dollar ranges the previous note carried are not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairsETH and any ERC-20 with a registered token bridge contract
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
deBridge
46#15 of 18
Pick it when
Pick deBridge if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Arbitrum Bridge's 2/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
AR
Arbitrum Bridge
55#8 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 10/10 to deBridge's 5/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Trust — 10/10
Tradeoff
7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
deBridge
Choose deBridge if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 22)
deBridgeScore 46Cross-chain bridge for users who want faster execution with broader route reachStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
ARArbitrum BridgeLeads
Choose Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most
Trust: 10/10 against 5/10 for deBridge (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 6/10 for deBridge (weight 24)
Arbitrum BridgeScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum movementStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)
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 5 of 10weight 6.7 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Arbitrum Bridge leads
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge9/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 6 of 10weight 5.3 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Trust
by 5 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Arbitrum Bridge leads
deBridge5/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge10/10 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
deBridge20/20Arbitrum Bridge14/20
deBridge leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
deBridge15.5/30Arbitrum Bridge13.8/30
deBridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
deBridge2.7/10Arbitrum Bridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
deBridge3.2/8Arbitrum Bridge3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
deBridge1.4/18Arbitrum Bridge12.5/18
Arbitrum Bridge leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Arbitrum Bridge unless the term deBridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick deBridge if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Arbitrum Bridge's 2/10 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
Arbitrum Bridge scores 9 points above deBridge, led by trust and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: deBridge 46 (rank 15 of 18 bridges), Arbitrum Bridge 55 (rank 8 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
