deBridge vs Everclear (formerly Connext) deBridge leads by 5 points.
deBridge scores 5 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. deBridge ranks #15 and Everclear (formerly Connext) #17 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
deBridge46
vs
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #15 and #17 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+24.7
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below4641+5.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
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 defaultsEverclear (formerly Connext)Score 41Modular clearing layer for cross-chain liquidity nettingStrength: Speed — 4/10Watch-out: Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactdeBridgeEverclear (formerly Connext)
PricingSnapshotRe-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.Everclear FAQ (docs.everclear.org/developers/faqs.md, fetched 30 September 2026): "Protocol fees are charged dynamically depending on the route (combination of asset, origin, destinations). Fees are levied against the amount sent." Gas is paid on top, and an intent that is not matched is discounted each epoch until netted ("discountBPS = (currentEpoch - entryEpoch - 1) * discountPerEpoch"). No fee rate is published on that page. This corrects the previous note: Everclear does charge the sender of an intent.
Asset coverageEditorialFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairsCross-chain liquidity netting for integrated dapps
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
deBridge
46#15 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick deBridge if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
EV
Everclear (formerly Connext)
41#17 of 18
Pick it when
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on no published criterion; its edge is measured data (6.9 vs 1.4 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
Strength
Speed — 4/10
Tradeoff
Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
deBridgeLeads
Choose deBridge if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 3/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 28)
Trust: 5/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 26)
Route clarity: 6/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 24)
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
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads deBridge on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Everclear (formerly Connext)Score 41Modular clearing layer for cross-chain liquidity nettingStrength: Speed — 4/10Watch-out: Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
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 4 of 10weight 6.7 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge5/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 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
deBridge20/20Everclear (formerly Connext)14/20
deBridge leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
deBridge15.5/30Everclear (formerly Connext)6.5/30
deBridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
deBridge2.7/10Everclear (formerly Connext)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
deBridge3.2/8Everclear (formerly Connext)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
deBridge1.4/18Everclear (formerly Connext)6.9/18
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose deBridge unless the term Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on is the one you are buying.
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on no published criterion; its edge is measured data (6.9 vs 1.4 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
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
deBridge scores 5 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: deBridge 46 (rank 15 of 18 bridges), Everclear (formerly Connext) 41 (rank 17 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
