Orbiter Finance vs Everclear (formerly Connext) Orbiter Finance leads by 20 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 20 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Everclear (formerly Connext) #17 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #17 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.2
Reproduced gap+39.0
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6141+20.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
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 messageEverclear (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
FactOrbiter FinanceEverclear (formerly Connext)
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.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 coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionCross-chain liquidity netting for integrated dapps
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 coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 3/10 there (weight 28).
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
EV
Everclear (formerly Connext)
41#17 of 18
Pick it when
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Orbiter Finance 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?
Orbiter FinanceLeads
Choose Orbiter Finance if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 3/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 28)
Trust: 4/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 26)
Route clarity: 7/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (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
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Orbiter Finance 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
by 4 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 5 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 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.
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on is the one you are buying.
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Orbiter Finance 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
Orbiter Finance scores 20 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 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
