Hop Protocol and Symbiosis tie on score at 41; the published tie-break orders them. Hop Protocol is ahead on trust and route clarity. Hop Protocol ranks #18 and Symbiosis #16 of 18 published bridges. The ledger below shows where each side is ahead — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
HOHop Protocol41
vs
Symbiosis41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #18 and #16 of 18
Hop Protocol and Symbiosis tie on score at 41; the published tie-break orders them. Hop Protocol is ahead on trust and route clarity.
HOHop Protocol #18 of 1841
Symbiosis #16 of 1841
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termHop Protocol leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Symbiosis on 2. The terms sum to the gap.
TermHop ProtocolSymbiosisWeightPoints
Route coverage3/109/106.7−10.5for Symbiosis−5.4 of 32
Trust5/103/106.2+3.2for Hop Protocol+1.7 of 32
Route clarity4/103/105.8+1.5for Hop Protocol+0.8 of 32
Transfer speed4/106/105.3−2.7for Symbiosis−1.4 of 32
No longer operatingEligibilitysunset 2026-10-23operating—−26.0for Symbiosis
Net of the terms−34.5
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+1.2
Reproduced gap−33.3
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 low vs evidence high — 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now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026.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 HopSymbiosisScore 41Cross-chain AMM connecting EVM, Solana, TON, Tron, and BitcoinStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
Quick facts
At a glance
FactHop ProtocolSymbiosis
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.Symbiosis docs, "Symbiosis & Fees" (docs.symbiosis.finance/main-concepts/symbiosis-and-fees.md, fetched 30 September 2026): the user pays source-chain gas - "The user signs and submits this transaction on the source blockchain (where their assets are held) and covers the gas fee for this transaction." - and the gas that Symbiosis relayers spend on the S-chain and the destination chain is withheld from the swapped tokens as a stablecoin-equivalent estimate; the FAQ (docs.symbiosis.finance/faq.md) puts it as "relayers pay for the gas, which is deducted from users swaps". Octopool swap fees and slippage apply on top. No percentage fee is published on either page, so the percentage the previous note carried is not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routesCross-chain AMM swaps across heterogeneous ecosystems
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 Symbiosis's 3/10 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
Symbiosis
41#16 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Symbiosis if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 to Hop Protocol's 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 9/10
Tradeoff
Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
HOHop Protocol
Choose Hop Protocol if trust matters most
Trust: 5/10 against 3/10 for Symbiosis (weight 26)
Route clarity: 4/10 against 3/10 for Symbiosis (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
Symbiosis
Choose Symbiosis if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 9/10 against 3/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 6/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 22)
SymbiosisScore 41Cross-chain AMM connecting EVM, Solana, TON, Tron, and BitcoinStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
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 86Symbiosis leads
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Symbiosis9/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Symbiosis3/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Symbiosis leads
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Symbiosis6/10 out of 10
Trust
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Hop Protocol5/10 out of 10
Symbiosis3/10 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 Protocol14/20Symbiosis14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Hop Protocol0/30Symbiosis12.8/30
Symbiosis leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Hop Protocol2.7/10Symbiosis2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Hop Protocol3.2/8Symbiosis3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Hop Protocol6.9/18Symbiosis6.9/18
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 Symbiosis's 3/10 there (weight 26).
Pick Symbiosis if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 to Hop Protocol's 3/10 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.
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
Hop Protocol and Symbiosis tie on score at 41; the published tie-break orders them. Hop Protocol is ahead on trust and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 of 18 bridges), Symbiosis 41 (rank 16 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
