Skip to main content

Head-to-head · Bridges

Hop Protocol vs Jumper Exchange Jumper Exchange leads by 22 points.

Jumper Exchange scores 22 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Hop Protocol ranks #18 and Jumper Exchange #3 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.

Hop Protocol41
Jumper Exchange63
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #18 and #3 of 18
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot 4 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-HOP-PROTOCOL-VS-JUMPER-EXCHANGE-df12d128
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Jumper Exchange leads by 22 points

Jumper Exchange scores 22 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block.

Hop Protocol #18 of 1841
Jumper Exchange #3 of 1863
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termJumper Exchange leads on 3 of 4 published criteria; Hop Protocol on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermJumper ExchangeHop ProtocolWeightPoints
Route coverage9/103/106.7+10.5for Jumper Exchange+5.4 of 32
Route clarity8/104/105.8+6.0for Jumper Exchange+3.1 of 32
Transfer speed6/104/105.3+2.7for Jumper Exchange+1.4 of 32
Measured dataScore dimension12.56.918+14.6for Jumper Exchange
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Jumper Exchange
Net of the terms+59.8
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.3
Reproduced gap+58.5
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6341+22.0

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.
Quick facts

At a glance

FactHop ProtocolJumper Exchange
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.Jumper's own terms page (jumper.exchange/legal/terms, now jumper.xyz) answered HTTP 403 on 30 September 2026, so the price is read from LI.FI, the routing layer Jumper runs on. LI.FI's FAQ (docs.li.fi/faqs/fees-monetization, fetched 30 September 2026) states "LI.FI charges a 0.25% service fee on each transaction." and "LI.FI also offers volume-based commercial discounts."; bridge, DEX and gas costs are separate ("Fee structures vary by bridge or DEX."). A same-day LI.FI quote requested with integrator=jumper.exchange for USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum (fromAmount=1000000000, six decimals) returned "toAmount":"1000000000", "feeCosts":[] and route "polymerStandard" (li.quest/v1/quote), i.e. no service fee was applied on the Jumper integrator for that route; gas is extra.
Asset coverageEditorialRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routesCross-chain bridge aggregation across all LI.FI-supported routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

Hop Protocol

41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Hop Protocol leads Jumper Exchange 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
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

Jumper Exchange

63#3 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Jumper Exchange if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 to Hop Protocol's 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 9/10
Tradeoff
Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guarantee
Self-identify in 10 seconds

Which one is actually for you?

Hop Protocol

Hop Protocol leads Jumper Exchange on no published criterion

  • Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Jumper ExchangeLeads

Choose Jumper Exchange if route coverage matters most

  • Route coverage: 9/10 against 3/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 28)
  • Route clarity: 8/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 24)
  • Transfer speed: 6/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 22)
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 86Jumper Exchange leads
Hop Protocol3 out of 10
Jumper Exchange9 out of 10

Route clarity

by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Hop Protocol4 out of 10
Jumper Exchange8 out of 10

Transfer speed

by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Hop Protocol4 out of 10
Jumper Exchange6 out of 10

Trust

weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Hop Protocol5 out of 10
Jumper Exchange5 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 Protocol14/20Jumper Exchange14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hop Protocol0/30Jumper Exchange16.9/30
Jumper Exchange leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hop Protocol2.7/10Jumper Exchange2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Hop Protocol3.2/8Jumper Exchange3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Hop Protocol6.9/18Jumper Exchange12.5/18
Jumper Exchange leads
Decision rulePublished order

Choose Jumper Exchange unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.

Hop Protocol leads Jumper Exchange 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.
    Scored by Trust posture · 26% (Hop Protocol 5/10, Jumper Exchange 5/10)
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

Jumper Exchange scores 22 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), Jumper Exchange 63 (rank 3 of 18).

Related pages

Go deeper

Reviewed Next review by Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed

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.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Free advisorNo signup needed

Skip the comparison — get your best match

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 signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research