deBridge vs Squid Router Squid Router leads by 16 points.
Squid Router scores 16 points above deBridge, led by route coverage. deBridge ranks #15 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.
deBridge46
vs
Squid Router62
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #15 and #4 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6246+16.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge feesdeBridgeScore 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.
FactdeBridgeSquid Router
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.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 coverageEditorialFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairsCross-asset swap and bridge across all Axelar-connected chains
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
deBridge
46#15 of 18
Pick it when
Pick deBridge if route clarity matters most — it scores 6/10 to Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
Squid Router
62#4 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to deBridge'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?
deBridge
Choose deBridge if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 6/10 against 5/10 for Squid Router (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 7/10 for Squid Router (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
Squid RouterLeads
Choose Squid Router if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 10/10 against 7/10 for deBridge (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
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Squid Router10/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86deBridge leads
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Squid Router7/10 out of 10
Trust
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
deBridge5/10 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
deBridge20/20Squid Router14/20
deBridge leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
deBridge15.5/30Squid Router16.4/30
Squid Router leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
deBridge2.7/10Squid Router2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
deBridge3.2/8Squid Router3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
deBridge1.4/18Squid Router12.5/18
Squid Router leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Squid Router unless the term deBridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick deBridge if route clarity matters most — it scores 6/10 to Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 24).
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
Squid Router scores 16 points above deBridge, led by route coverage. Published scores, out of 100: deBridge 46 (rank 15 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
