deBridge vs Optimism Gateway Optimism Gateway leads by 9 points.
Optimism Gateway scores 9 points above deBridge, led by trust and route clarity. deBridge ranks #15 and Optimism Gateway #9 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
deBridge46
vs
Optimism Gateway55
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #15 and #9 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+8.6
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.
Optimism Gateway's lead rests on lighter criteria: deBridge is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Optimism Gateway leads on (26).
Optimism GatewayScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Optimism / OP Stack chainsStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day withdrawal window for direct exits (third-party bridges offer fast withdrawals)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.
FactdeBridgeOptimism Gateway
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.OP docs, "Using the Standard Bridge" (docs.optimism.io/app-developers/guides/bridging/standard-bridge, fetched 30 September 2026): no bridge fee is stated on that page; the cost is gas, set per transfer as "_minGasLimit : Gas to use to complete the transfer on the receiving side." Deposits "are usually completed within 1-3 minutes" and withdrawals "are completed in 7 days as a result of the withdrawal challenge period", with a prove and a finalize transaction on Ethereum. No dollar cost is published on the page, so the dollar ranges the previous note carried are not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairsETH and registered ERC-20s
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 Optimism Gateway's 1/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
Optimism Gateway
55#9 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Optimism Gateway if trust matters most — it scores 10/10 to deBridge's 5/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Trust — 10/10
Tradeoff
7-day withdrawal window for direct exits (third-party bridges offer fast withdrawals)
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
deBridge
Choose deBridge if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 1/10 for Optimism Gateway (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 3/10 for Optimism Gateway (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
Optimism GatewayLeads
Choose Optimism Gateway 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)
Optimism GatewayScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Optimism / OP Stack chainsStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day withdrawal window for direct exits (third-party bridges offer fast withdrawals)
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 6 of 10weight 6.7 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Optimism Gateway1/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Optimism Gateway leads
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Optimism Gateway9/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 5 of 10weight 5.3 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Optimism Gateway3/10 out of 10
Trust
by 5 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Optimism Gateway leads
deBridge5/10 out of 10
Optimism Gateway10/10 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
deBridge20/20Optimism Gateway14/20
deBridge leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
deBridge15.5/30Optimism Gateway13.7/30
deBridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
deBridge2.7/10Optimism Gateway2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
deBridge3.2/8Optimism Gateway3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
deBridge1.4/18Optimism Gateway12.5/18
Optimism Gateway leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Optimism Gateway unless the term deBridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick deBridge if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Optimism Gateway's 1/10 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
Optimism Gateway scores 9 points above deBridge, led by trust and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: deBridge 46 (rank 15 of 18 bridges), Optimism Gateway 55 (rank 9 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
