Hop Protocol vs Everclear (formerly Connext) Same published score.
Everclear (formerly Connext) and Hop Protocol tie on score at 41; the published tie-break orders them. Hop Protocol ranks #18 and Everclear (formerly Connext) #17 of 18 published bridges. The ledger below shows where each side is ahead — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
HOHop Protocol41
vs
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #18 and #17 of 18
Route clarity2/104/105.8−3.0for Hop Protocol−1.5 of 32
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Everclear (formerly Connext)
Net of the terms+18.1
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.2
Reproduced gap+16.9
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below41410.0
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.
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now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026.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 HopEverclear (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
FactHop ProtocolEverclear (formerly Connext)
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.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 coverageEditorialRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routesCross-chain liquidity netting for integrated dapps
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 trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 2/10 there (weight 26).
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
EV
Everclear (formerly Connext)
41#17 of 18
Pick it when
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Hop Protocol on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
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?
HOHop Protocol
Choose Hop Protocol if trust matters most
Trust: 5/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 26)
Route clarity: 4/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 24)
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
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Hop Protocol 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
weight 6.7 of 86Tie
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Hop Protocol5/10 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
Hop Protocol14/20Everclear (formerly Connext)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hop Protocol0/30Everclear (formerly Connext)6.5/30
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hop Protocol2.7/10Everclear (formerly Connext)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Hop Protocol3.2/8Everclear (formerly Connext)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Hop Protocol6.9/18Everclear (formerly Connext)6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Same published score — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
Pick Hop Protocol if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 2/10 there (weight 26).
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Hop Protocol on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
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
Everclear (formerly Connext) and Hop Protocol tie on score at 41; the published tie-break orders them. Published scores, out of 100: Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 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