Orbiter Finance vs Hop Protocol Orbiter Finance leads by 20 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 20 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Hop Protocol #18 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
HOHop Protocol41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #18 of 18
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Orbiter Finance
Net of the terms+57.0
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.1
Reproduced gap+55.9
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.
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.
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 messageHop 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now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026.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
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactOrbiter FinanceHop Protocol
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.Withdrawn 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.
Asset coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
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 Hop Protocol'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
HO
Hop Protocol
41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Hop Protocol if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 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
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 Hop Protocol (weight 28)
Route clarity: 7/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 22)
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
HOHop Protocol
Choose Hop Protocol if trust matters most
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
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
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
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol5/10 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 Finance20/20Hop Protocol14/20
Orbiter Finance leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Hop Protocol0/30
Orbiter Finance leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Hop Protocol2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Hop Protocol3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Hop Protocol6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Hop Protocol 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.
Scored by Trust posture · 26% (Orbiter Finance 4/10, Hop Protocol 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
Orbiter Finance scores 20 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 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
