Orbiter Finance vs Jumper Exchange Jumper Exchange leads by 2 points.
Jumper Exchange scores 2 points above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 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.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
Jumper Exchange63
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #3 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+2.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6361+2.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Jumper ExchangeScore 63LI.FI-powered bridge + DEX aggregator with route comparisonStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guaranteeOrbiter 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
Quick facts
At a glance
FactOrbiter FinanceJumper Exchange
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.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 coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionCross-chain bridge aggregation across all LI.FI-supported routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if transfer speed matters most — it scores 8/10 to Jumper Exchange's 6/10 there (weight 22).
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
Jumper Exchange
63#3 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Jumper Exchange if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 to Orbiter Finance's 7/10 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?
Orbiter Finance
Choose Orbiter Finance if transfer speed matters most
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 6/10 for Jumper Exchange (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
Jumper ExchangeLeads
Choose Jumper Exchange if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 9/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 28)
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
Route clarity: 8/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 24)
Jumper ExchangeScore 63LI.FI-powered bridge + DEX aggregator with route comparisonStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guarantee
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 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange9/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange8/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange6/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange5/10 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 Finance20/20Jumper Exchange14/20
Orbiter Finance leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Jumper Exchange16.9/30
Jumper Exchange leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Jumper Exchange2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Jumper Exchange3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Jumper Exchange12.5/18
Jumper Exchange leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Jumper Exchange unless the term Orbiter Finance leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Orbiter Finance if transfer speed matters most — it scores 8/10 to Jumper Exchange's 6/10 there (weight 22).
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
Jumper Exchange scores 2 points above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Jumper Exchange 63 (rank 3 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
