Hop Protocol vs Base Bridge Base Bridge leads by 20 points.
Base Bridge scores 20 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Hop Protocol ranks #18 and Base Bridge #6 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
HOHop Protocol41
vs
Base Bridge61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #18 and #6 of 18
Base Bridge scores 20 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block.
HOHop Protocol #18 of 1841
Base Bridge #6 of 1861
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termBase Bridge leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Hop Protocol on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermBase BridgeHop ProtocolWeightPoints
Route coverage2/103/106.7−1.7for Hop Protocol−0.9 of 32
Trust9/105/106.2+6.5for Base Bridge+3.3 of 32
Route clarity8/104/105.8+6.0for Base Bridge+3.1 of 32
Measured dataScore dimension12.56.918+14.6for Base Bridge
Trust recordScore dimension5.63.28+6.2for Base Bridge
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Base Bridge
Net of the terms+57.5
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.1
Reproduced gap+56.4
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6141+20.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
EvidenceEvidence evidence high vs evidence low — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
Base Bridge's lead rests on lighter criteria: Hop Protocol is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Base Bridge leads on (26).
Hop Protocol no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and is kept for reference: the engine zeroes its criteria block, whatever its cells say.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
Base BridgeScore 61Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ BaseStrength: Trust — 9/10Watch-out: Direct withdrawals to Ethereum wait out a 5-day window, or 1 day on the fast path when a TEE proof and a ZK proof back the same proposalHop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Quick facts
At a glance
FactHop ProtocolBase Bridge
PricingSnapshotWithdrawn 23 October 2026 (hop.exchange serves a gambling page; app and route API down), so no current price exists. Last read, kept for the record: Hop user docs, "Fees" (docs.hop.exchange/basics/fees, fetched 30 September 2026; the page reads "Last updated 2 years ago"): "3. Bonder fee (0.05-0.30%)", AMM swap fees of "0.01% - 0.04%" per swap ("L2 <> L2 -> 0.02% - 0.08% swap fees (because two swaps)"), destination gas, and "To prevent spamming there is a minimum fee of $0.25 per Hop transfer." These are documentation figures only: on the same date app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error", the quote API api.hop.exchange returned a Cloudflare origin-DNS error, explorer.hop.exchange returned a Netlify "Site not found" page and hop.exchange served an unrelated gambling page, so no live Hop price could be read.Base docs (fetched 30 September 2026): the canonical deposit path pays gas only - "They buy their L2 gas on L1 and, as such, the L2 gas is not refundable." (docs.base.org/specifications/base-protocol/bridging/deposits). Base no longer runs its own bridge interface: its "Bridge to Base" page (docs.base.org/base-chain/network-information/ecosystem-bridges) sends Ethereum users to "Superbridge or Brid.gg" and Coinbase-account holders to "Withdraw directly to Base (no bridge)". The previous pricing page, docs.base.org/use-base/bridge, now returns HTTP 404. No bridge fee is stated on the pages read.
Asset coverageEditorialRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routesETH and registered ERC-20s
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
HO
Hop Protocol
41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Hop Protocol if route coverage matters most — it scores 3/10 to Base Bridge's 2/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026
Tradeoff
Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Base Bridge
61#6 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Base Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 9/10 to Hop Protocol's 5/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Trust — 9/10
Tradeoff
Direct withdrawals to Ethereum wait out a 5-day window, or 1 day on the fast path when a TEE proof and a ZK proof back the same proposal
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
HOHop Protocol
Choose Hop Protocol if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 3/10 against 2/10 for Base Bridge (weight 28)
Hop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Base BridgeLeads
Choose Base Bridge if trust matters most
Trust: 9/10 against 5/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 26)
Route clarity: 8/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 24)
Base BridgeScore 61Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ BaseStrength: Trust — 9/10Watch-out: Direct withdrawals to Ethereum wait out a 5-day window, or 1 day on the fast path when a TEE proof and a ZK proof back the same proposal
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 1 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Base Bridge2/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Base Bridge leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Base Bridge8/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Base Bridge4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 4 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Base Bridge leads
Hop Protocol5/10 out of 10
Base Bridge9/10 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
Hop Protocol14/20Base Bridge14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hop Protocol0/30Base Bridge13.7/30
Base Bridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hop Protocol2.7/10Base Bridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Hop Protocol3.2/8Base Bridge5.6/8
Base Bridge leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Hop Protocol6.9/18Base Bridge12.5/18
Base Bridge leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Base Bridge unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Hop Protocol if route coverage matters most — it scores 3/10 to Base 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.
Scored by Trust posture · 26% (Hop Protocol 5/10, Base Bridge 9/10)
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
Base Bridge scores 20 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Published scores, out of 100: Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 of 18 bridges), Base Bridge 61 (rank 6 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
