Hop Protocol vs deBridge deBridge leads by 5 points.
deBridge scores 5 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Hop Protocol ranks #18 and deBridge #15 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
HOHop Protocol41
vs
deBridge46
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #18 and #15 of 18
Measured dataScore dimension1.46.918−14.3for Hop Protocol
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for deBridge
Net of the terms+42.8
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.2
Reproduced gap+41.6
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.
EvidenceEvidence evidence high vs evidence low — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
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.
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 defaultsHop 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now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026.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 ProtocoldeBridge
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.Re-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.
Asset coverageEditorialRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routesFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairs
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
HO
Hop Protocol
41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Hop Protocol 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
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
deBridge
46#15 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick deBridge if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Hop Protocol's 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less low-noise than the clearest mainstream bridge defaults
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
HOHop Protocol
Hop Protocol 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.
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
deBridgeLeads
Choose deBridge if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 3/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 28)
Route clarity: 6/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (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
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
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86deBridge leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86deBridge leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Trust
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Hop Protocol5/10 out of 10
deBridge5/10 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 Protocol14/20deBridge20/20
deBridge leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hop Protocol0/30deBridge15.5/30
deBridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hop Protocol2.7/10deBridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Hop Protocol3.2/8deBridge3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Hop Protocol6.9/18deBridge1.4/18
Hop Protocol leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose deBridge unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.
Hop Protocol 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 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), deBridge 46 (rank 15 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
