Orbiter Finance vs deBridge Orbiter Finance leads by 15 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 15 points above deBridge, led by route clarity. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and deBridge #15 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
deBridge46
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #15 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+14.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6146+15.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Orbiter Finance's lead rests on lighter criteria: deBridge is ahead on trust, which carries more weight (26) than any criterion Orbiter Finance leads on (24).
Orbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain messagedeBridgeScore 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
Quick facts
At a glance
FactOrbiter FinancedeBridge
PricingSnapshotOrbiter docs, "Maker System" (docs.orbiter.finance/welcome/maker-system.md, fetched 30 September 2026): each Maker sets its own charges - "Withholding Fee: A one-time charge to cover the cost of gas for transfers to the destination network." and "Trading Fee: Makers can choose a percentage of the trading value they wish to get from the per-transaction amount." - and "the minimum transaction value is 0.005 ETH". No percentage is published on that page or on the Bridge Protocol page, so the percentage range the previous note carried is not repeated. Orbiter's quote API (api.orbiter.finance, and the openapi.orbiter.finance mirror) did not answer on 30 September 2026, so no live quote was 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 coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionFaster cross-chain movement across supported token and route pairs
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most — it scores 7/10 to deBridge's 6/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
deBridge
46#15 of 18
Pick it when
Pick deBridge if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 there (weight 26).
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?
Orbiter FinanceLeads
Choose Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 7/10 against 6/10 for deBridge (weight 24)
Orbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
deBridge
Choose deBridge if trust matters most
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
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
weight 6.7 of 86Tie
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
deBridge7/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
deBridge6/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
deBridge8/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86deBridge leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 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
Orbiter Finance20/20deBridge20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30deBridge15.5/30
Tie
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10deBridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8deBridge3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18deBridge1.4/18
Orbiter Finance leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term deBridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick deBridge if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 there (weight 26).
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
Orbiter Finance scores 15 points above deBridge, led by route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 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
